Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Chimpanzee included in the genus Homo? How

biology teachers from three Latin American
countries conceive it

Heslley M. Silva, Gonzalo Peñaloza, Ivanna H. Tomasco & Graça S. Carvalho

To cite this article: Heslley M. Silva, Gonzalo Peñaloza, Ivanna H. Tomasco & Graça S. Carvalho
(2018): Chimpanzee included in the genus Homo? How biology teachers from three Latin American
countries conceive it, Journal of Biological Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2018.1501408

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1501408

Published online: 24 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1501408

Chimpanzee included in the genus Homo? How biology teachers

from three Latin American countries conceive it
Heslley M. Silvaa, Gonzalo Peñalozab, Ivanna H. Tomascoc and Graça S. Carvalhod
a
Department of Education and Health, University Center of Formiga, Formiga City, Minas Gerais State, Brazil;
b
DIDAQUIM Research Group, Distrital University Francisco José de Caldas, Bogotá, Colombia; cDepartment of
Ecology and Evolution, Universidad de la República de Uruguay, Montevideo UdelaR, Uruguay; dCIEC, University
of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, Braga, Portugal

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite scientific evidence suggesting close phylogenetic relationship Human origin; chimpanzee;
between chimpanzees and humans, the inclusion of these apes in the evolution; religion;
genus Homo is controversial. Several tools have been used to analyse this education subject
issue such as fossils, molecular clock and genome. This work intended to
understand the biology teachers’ conceptions about the humans’ and
chimpanzee’s position. It was carried out in three countries with contrasting
secularism conditions: Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Teachers were asked
to answer to the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN project question: ‘The Chimpanzee
should be included in the genus Homo, notably because 98.5% of its DNA
is identical to that of Homo sapiens’. Results were analysed within the KVP
model framework and the Barbour’s four categories of relationship between
science knowledge and religion. Most questioned teachers (80%) of the
three countries rejected the idea of including the chimpanzee in the genus
Homo (86% of Argentinians, 71% of Brazilians and 71% Uruguayans), sug-
gesting the conception of human beings having a special position in
relation to other animal species. This study also indicates that the training
of biology teachers needs to be analysed in the three countries to under-
stand how teachers-to-be are being trained and evaluate their knowledge
regarding molecular biology, phylogeny and evolution.

Introduction
Nowadays, the issue of evolutionary association between chimpanzees and humans is seen by
scientists as a matter of the past, therefore it is no longer an important subject of debate within
academy and educational actors. At first glance, by outward looking, it may appear that these
animal species are rather apart from each other, however the taxonomic classification is not only
based in morphological features but rather by genealogical links between both species (Ingold,
1995). Carroll (2003) points out that to understand the genetic basis of different physical and
behavioural characteristics between humans and other primates is a major challenge of biology.
This author further questions which of the millions of base pairs are different between chimpan-
zees and humans, thus contributing to the separation lines. Authors like Prüfer and collaborators
(2012) claim that the two species of African apes, chimpanzees and bonobos, are genetically close
to the human species, and that this proximity is more intense than previously expected, since
humans have a higher phylogenetic similarity to these species than to other primates.

CONTACT Heslley M. Silva heslley@uniformg.edu.br

© 2018 Royal Society of Biology
2 H. M. SILVA ET AL.

Most of the differences in gene expression between chimpanzees and humans is the result of
genomic duplication, verifiable through rate mutations that occurred from the ancient separa-
tion of the two species (Cheng et al., 2005). Studies on the genomes of both species confirm
that the molecular clock reveals a past closeness between the two species. Indeed, the genome
sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) has been compared with the human
genome, creating a complete picture of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the
divergence between these two species (Derek et al., 2003). According to the genetics and
molecular data the chimpanzee and human clades separation must have occurred somewhere
about 5 to 7 million years ago (Carroll, 2003). However, there are still gaps in this process to
be understood, so that Cordeiro (2008) questions the genes role on the differentiation and
separation of chimpanzees and human clades, emphasizing that human evolution has occurred
in semi-isolated populations, having evolved more rapidly, under a strong effect of natural
selection together with genetic drift.
Furthermore, the functional part of the chimpanzees’ and humans’ genome have more than
99% similarity, being closer than previously thought and have an exact parity of 95% of their DNA
(Cheng et al., 2003). In addition to genetics, other features demonstrate the close relationship
between the two species, such as anatomical similarities of common ancestors’ bones with those of
chimpanzees and archaic forms of humans, (Australopithecus and Homo habilis) (Deloison,
1997), and possible analogous cultures among chimpanzees and humans as perceived by Boesch
and Tomasello (1998). Based on DNA evidence, Wildman and collaborators (2003) suggest an
alternative taxonomic grouping of apes by including all living apes (Gorillas, Chimpanzees,
Bonobos and Orangutans) in the large Hominidae family, and then the genus Homo encompass-
ing three species in two subgenera: Homo (Homo), including humans; and Homo (Pan) including
troglodytes (chimpanzee) and paniscus (bonobo).
Furthermore, Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003), based in new fossil discoveries, discuss the reasons
for the insertion of the new species in the genus Homo or the creation of a new genus for those
species. According to these authors, this discussion can be transposed to the chimpanzee,
glimpsing its possible insertion in the genus Homo. As Simon (1989) points out, skeletons of 3-
million-year-old ancestral hominids exhibit many anatomical similarities to great apes, such as the
chimpanzee. Therefore, the possible common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees of a few
million years ago would reinforce the possibility of insertion of these primates into the genus
Homo. In addition to fossils and morphological characteristics, works on the comparison of the
genome of Chimpanzees and humans (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium,
2005) have been carried out to classifying the genetic differences that have been accumulating
from the common ancestor. These studies on evolutionary genetics have allowed the construction
of phylogenetic trees with greater proximity between humans and chimpanzees than those
previously proposed by paleontologists and comparative anatomists (Bruce and Ayala, 1979). By
the molecular clock it was possible to estimate reasonably when the separation between the
hominids and the great apes occurred (Hasegawa, Kishino, and Yano, 1985).
Through the molecular clock, Chen and Li (2001) have demonstrated that the specialization that
generated the orangutan clade occurred between 12 and 16 M years ago, that of the gorilla at 6.2 to
8.4 M years and that of chimpanzees just 4.6 to 6.2 M years, suggesting the possible insertion of these
great primates in the genus Homo. Sibley and Ahlquist (1984), using DNA hybridization, arrived at
different dates for the separation between chimpanzees and humans, somewhere between 6.3 and
7.7 M ago. This significant disagreement of the dates demonstrates that the bifurcation between
chimpanzees and humans on the evolutionary scale is not totally resolved.
One can sustain the separation between the two genera in the perception that the human
species underwent presumptive and dramatic phenotypic modifications by Darwinian positive
selection in its evolutionary process. Interestingly, Bakewell, Shi, and Zhang (2007) have demon-
strated that this positive selection is more intense in chimpanzees than in humans.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

The argument against the insertion of the chimpanzee in the genus Homo is supported by
several works, such as the one by Cheng and collaborators (2005), who claims that the basic
genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans consists of genomic duplications and that
the impact of these duplications was greater than the mutations by substitution. The same idea of
non-insertion of the chimpanzee in the genus Homo is also supported by Khaitovich and
collaborators (2005), by the analysis involving sequences of proteins encoded by active genes in
chimpanzee’s and human’s brain, heart and other organs. It is possible to support the separation
between the two genera in the perspective that the human species underwent presumptive and
dramatic phenotypic modifications (by Darwinian positive selection in its evolutionary process),
however, interestingly, Bakewell, Shi, and Zhang (2007) have demonstrated that this positive
selection was more intense in the chimpanzees than in humans.
For Goodman (1999) what is thought to be different between the two species is much smaller
than was previously assumed, since chimpanzees are intelligent and emotionally complex, use
tools and have culture of materials, are highly social, ecologically generalist in their diet, and seem
to be able to use forms of rudimentary language. All this, combined with the information of
comparative molecular genetics, breaks with the anthropocentric view that humans beings are
absolutely different from other animals. According to the same author, the traditional classifica-
tion of the genus Homo and primates is strongly influenced by anthropologists, using nebulous
concepts that highlight the question of specimens of extinct reduced-brain primates of the order
Prosimian on one side and Anthropoids on the other side with larger brains. This sort of
classification ignores the fact that there is a great difference between the evolutionary process of
the African apes, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos, in relation to the Asians, orangutans, being
the African ones closer to humans. This conclusion is based on a large number of molecular
(Mitchell and Gonder, 2013), morphological, and fossil evidence (Goodman, 1999).
Considering this new proposal of classification and the controversies arising from it, the
present work seeks to investigate the conceptions of biology teachers from three Latin
American countries, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, on this issue.

Human nature according to catholicism

On 22 October 1996, Pope John Paul II declared that the theory of evolution could be considered
more than a merely hypothesis. Some years ago, in 1950, in the encyclical Humani generis, Pope
Pius XII had established that there was no opposition between evolution and the Doctrine of the
faith, provided that certain indisputable points were not lost sight of (Brosseau and Silberstein,
2015; Papanicolau, 2003). Among the undeniable points is the revelation that humans were
created in the image of God, so that the spiritual dimension of the human being cannot be
denied (Artigas, Glick, & Martínez, 2010).
In the framework of Catholic theology, the evolution has been made compatible with creation-
ism, how is summarized by Ayala (1994) as follows: ‘Evolution can also be considered as a natural
process through which God brings the living species to existence according to their plan.’ (p.147).
In other words, it is assumed that God could use Second Causes (laws, creatures, etc.) to give rise
to some entities from others, but even if he acts through of these causes, ultimately, everything
depends on him. On the other hand, the assumption that the creation is in a ‘state of way’ is
maintained, so that it is directed towards ultimate perfection and is in that process, which is the
destiny that God gave to the universe (Artigas and Turbón, 2007).
Since the catholic theology considers evolution as a scientific theory, it maintains the divine
creation as a dogma: ‘The Christian doctrine has always affirmed the divine creation of the world
and the creation of the human being an image and likeness of God and destined to eternal life
according to the divine plan’ (Artigas and Turbón, 2007, p.24). There may be a considerable
difference between the Catholics, led by the Vatican Academy of Sciences and the Papal figure,
and the other Christian strands more aligned with a more literal view of the Bible, rejecting
4 H. M. SILVA ET AL.

possible interpretations from the academic field. For many Christians, it is not possible to give up
the supernatural difference between human beings and other animals, since in their view man
would be the image of the Creator and there would be a tendency to perfection, including the
universe. This dogma of creation creates an additional difficulty for the acceptance by Christian
teachers of the insertion of Chimpanzees into the genus Homo.
Based on the previous ideas, in addition to this question related to the genetic proximity between
the two species, teachers were also asked about their religion in an attempt to find any association
between religion and evolution/taxonomy. Considering Argentina as the country less secular, with
the Catholic religion indicated in the Constitution, Brazil in an intermediate condition that is
officially secular but with a strong influence of religion in society, and Uruguay with an established
secular tradition (Oro, 2008), it was intended to find out how much teachers’ declared religion is a
relevant factor in their conceptions about the possible inclusion of the chimpanzee in the Homo
genus. This study takes into account the cultural and social context (the three countries), which is in
line with Livingstone (2005)’s view claiming that it is not possible to think of science construction
and its relations without thinking of a ‘geography of reading’.
This publication incorporates results from the research project entitled ‘Science, Philosophy,
and Theology: Capability Building in Latin America’ funded by The John Templeton Foundation”
under a research award held by the University of Oxford.

Methodology
In the present study the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN questionnaire was used for data collection. This
instrument is part of a wider European research and was initially used in 19 European, African and
the Middle East countries. The purpose of the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN (‘Biology, Health and
Environmental education for better Citizenship’) research project was to understand the interactions
between the social context of each country and teachers’ views on controversial issues such as
biological evolution, especially the origin of humans, sex education, environmental and health
education. One of the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN project goals was to understand the relationship between
religion and science in different countries and how their secularism may interfere with public
education (Caldeira, Araújo, and Carvalho, 2012; Carvalho, 2004; Carvalho and Clément, 2007).
In the present study, the answers of Argentinian, Brazilian and Uruguayan biology teachers to
the question B.7 of the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN questionnaire (‘The Chimpanzee should be included
in the genus Homo, notably because 98.5% of its DNA is identical to that of Homo sapiens’) were
analysed. B.7 question has four alternative answers, in a Likert scale type: ‘I totally agree’, ‘I agree
more than disagree’; ‘I disagree more than agree’ and ‘I do not agree’.
It is recognized that this type of approach has drawbacks, especially when it does not offer
respondents the possibility of argumentation. However, it can be a starting point for a more
quantitative approach to a deeper analysis through new research perspectives, such as the inter-
view, for example, foreseen in the project that originated this work.
Following the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN protocol (Carvalho, 2004; Carvalho and Clément, 2007),
the questionnaires was applied to no less than 50 Biology teachers in each country: 50 teachers in
Buenos Aires (Argentina), 62 in Belo Horizonte (Brazil), and 57 in Montevideo (Uruguay). A
similar sampling has also been used by Caldeira, Araújo, and Carvalho (2012) using the same
instrument with Brazilian teachers.
Statistical analysis of questionnaire answers used the STATISTICA 5.5 program. It was assessed
whether the level of agreement with the question differed significantly (at the level of 95%)
between the countries using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
The results of teachers’ conceptions about the insertion of chimpanzee in the genus Homo
(question B.7) were interpreted within the KVP model of Clément (2006). This model considers
that one’s conceptions emerge because of interactions between scientific knowledge (K), value
system (V), including ideologies, beliefs and opinions and social practices (P). In this study K
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

refers to teachers’ knowledge about evolution and taxonomy, V to their religious position and P as
their social and professional teaching practices.
Finally, the relationship between science and religion, perceived through the teachers’ responses
are discussed in the light of the four categories proposed by Barbour (1990): Dialogue, Integration,
Conflict and Independence. Categories of Dialogue and Integration are considered as favourable to
the approach of science and religion whereas categories of Conflict and Independence are contrary
to proximity of science and religion. It is recognized that there are limits to this type of approach
with a reductionist character that defines in categories a relationship as complex as the one between
science and religion. Indeed, the thesis of complexity proposed by Brooke (1991), assumes that the
study of relations between science and religion must take into account a diversity of aspects, such as
historical and cultural ones. Despite this pertinent type of criticism, the analysis based on Barbour’s
(1990) categories was chosen for the present study due to its scope in terms of references, to simplify
and typify the relations, besides being a starting point for more vertical analysis and then delve into
the topic through other authors.

Results and discussion

This research intended to look at the influence of teachers’ religion on their conceptions about the
inclusion of chimpanzee in the genus Homo. Table 1 shows the teachers’ declared religion, as they
answered to the BIOHEAD-CITIZEN questionnaire in each country: Argentina, Brazil and
Uruguay. The percentage of Catholics in the samples decreases with the country laicity:
Argentine, with 58% of Catholics, is the country with Catholicism inscribed in its Constitution;
Brazil, with 55%, is not officially declared Catholic but is traditionally religious; and Uruguay, with
49% of Catholics, is supposed to be a laic country. It is in Brazil that there are more Evangelicals
(11%) as compared to Uruguay (5%) and Argentina (4%). Interesting is the fact that among
Brazilian teachers, nearly a quarter (24%) are Spiritualists, and none of the other two countries
follow this doctrine. As expected, Uruguay was the country with the highest proportion of
agnostics/atheist teachers (37%). However, the high percentage of agnostics/atheist teachers in
Argentina (26%) and the very low in Brazil (7%) were unexpected findings, regarding previous
studies (Oro, 2008).
Oro (2008) has reported an important study on ‘Religion, Social Cohesion and Political
System in Latin America’, which data on the religion groups in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay
are shown in Table 2. Comparing the results of the present study (Table 1) with the ones by
Oro (2008) (Table 2), similarities are found regarding the Catholic religion and Evangelicals, but
a great difference can be seen about the percentage of agnostics/atheists in Argentina, 26% in
this study (Table 1) and 2% in Oro’s work (2008) (Table 2). This may be due to the fact that the
sample used in the present study is composed of teachers whereas the one by Oro (2008) was

Table 1. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay biology teachers’ declared religion.

Countries Catholics (%) Protestants (%) Spiritists (%) Other religion(%) Did not answer(%) Agnostic/Atheist(%)
Argentina 58 4 0 6 6 26
Brazil 55 11 24 3 0 7
Uruguay 49 5 0 2 2 37

Table 2. Religion in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

Countries Catholics (%) Evangelicals (%) Others (%) Non-religious (%)
Argentina 88,0 8,0 2,0 2,0
Brazil 73,6 15,4 3,6 7,4
Uruguay 52,0 2,0 11,0 35,0
Source: Oro (2008).
6 H. M. SILVA ET AL.

the general population, being possible that the professional class may be more laic than the
general population.
Figure 1 shows the results of teachers’ answers to question B7 about the inclusion of
Chimpanzee in the genus Homo due to DNA homology with Homo sapiens. The majority of
the teachers of the three countries did not agree with the question B.7: 288 (80.0%) ‘totally
disagree’ plus ‘disagree more than agree’ versus 72 (20%) ‘totally agree’ plus ‘agree more than
disagree’. The Argentinian teachers were the most in disagreement with a total of 86% (62%
‘totally disagree’ + 24 ‘disagree more than agree’) as compared to both Brazilians with 71%
(56% + 15%) and Uruguayans also with 71% (43% + 28%). Statistical comparisons between
country responses using the Kruskal Wallis test did not reveal statistically significant differ-
ences (H = 2.05 p = 0.36).
These findings indicate that our initial hypothesis of the country laicism influencing this issue
was not confirmed since the answers of the teachers from the three countries were not signifi-
cantly different, regardless the state secularity condition. On the other hand, if we consider the
level of conviction that the teachers interviewed in each country vehemently denied the proposi-
tion in question, the hypothesis of the country’s secularism condition influencing the perception
of the theme is supported. Argentine teachers - considered less secular - were the most incisive in
rejection (62% ‘totally disagree’), Brazilians in an intermediate rejection (56% ‘totally disagree’)
and Uruguayans - more secular - with a level of refutation minor (43% ‘totally disagree’).
Despite this small difference between countries, if data of the teachers’ declared religion
(Table 1) with the country’s religious pattern (Table 2) are crossed, some conclusions can be
inferred: Uruguayan teachers, more often atheists/agnostics and immersed in a less religious
population, tended to accept the question whereas Argentine and Brazilian teachers, with stronger
expressed religiosity and immersed in a religious society, were more discordant to the insertion of
the chimpanzee in the genus Homo.
As said above, teachers, in general (80%), tended to disagree with the B7 question, indicating that
they did not take into consideration the recent discoveries in the field of molecular biology (Borja,
2007; Rapchan, 2004) about the possibility of inclusion of the chimpanzee in the genus Homo.
Within the KVP model, this indicates that their scientific knowledge (K) is low and that their
religious values (V) may be more powerful. The component Practices (P) of the KVP model was not

Figure 1. Biology teachers’ answers to question B7 ‘The Chimpanzee should be included in the genus Homo, notably because
98.5% of its DNA is identical to that of Homo sapiens’.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

a matter of this study. As we showed before, the Catholicism, and others Christian religions, support
a deep difference between human beings and animals, even respect to chimpanzees, bonobos or
gorillas. This view is grounded on doctrinal assumptions that consider Man as an image of God, and
so assuming humans’ nature being essentially apart from other beings.
In general, teachers of the three countries fall mainly in the Barbour (1990) category of Conflict
since they show conflict between current molecular biology scientific knowledge and the religious
field itself when analysing the insertion of the chimpanzee in the genus Homo. Probably, respect
to other issues teachers could assume other relation between science and religion. But, the topic of
nature of human beings is historically a touchstone where these ideas have collided. In fact,
according to the Christian worldview it is unacceptable not only to consider humans as a natural
phenomenon but also relate them to primates. This perception of Christians about the origin of
humans makes it very difficult to embrace the categories of dialogue and integration.
Certainly, expert theologians have models to deal with the natural origin of humans, and in
parallel to explain his assumed divine nature and his soul. In any event these conceptual
disquisitions are not widespread into the common believers. Therefore, it is more probable find
a conflict category respect to this issue between the public.
On the other hand, an issue to be considered for teachers’ denial of the inclusion of chimpan-
zees in the genus Homo may be the fact that school textbooks usually present human evolution
initiated by a primate, very similar to the chimpanzee (Gatti and Nunes, 2013).
This evolution in scale, in single line, raises approaches and misconceptions suggesting that
‘human came from apes’, as a direct descendant of the chimpanzees. This creates successive
confusions about the biological evolution, particularly the human origin, creating an environment
of rejection to the Darwinian Theory, and so opening the possibility of creationism expansion.
By interviewing Brazilian biology teachers, Silva (2015) has found they have low knowledge
about biological evolution, especially in relation to human evolution, as they confuse religious
background with scientific knowledge in a process of filling the gap of their understanding about
biological evolution. In his research (Silva, 2015) a teacher reported that he asks his pupils
whether it is true that humans evolve from apes, and so why we do not see apes evolving to
humans until today. This discourse reveals a large number of weaknesses in the teacher’s under-
standing of evolution, indicating the failure of the training process, probably related to the
evolution time scale of apes towards humans and that apes would be something similar to
chimpanzees. This condition can influence the answering to the question B.7. It is important to
consider that many teachers, and especially secondary school students, consider evolution,
especially human evolution, as something to ‘believe’, which is an argument widely used by
creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design. Since evolution is based on much evidence, it
should be a matter of accepting the evidence and considering it as a fact (Williams, 2015). Even
when they ‘believe’ in biological evolution, many students end up constructing the conception of
this theme with poor support from scientifically grounded arguments (Basel et al., 2014).
This controversy about the relationship between apes is an old issue, and Bizzo (2006) points
out that when Huxley, disciple and personal friend of Charles Darwin, launched the book Man’s
Place in Nature in 1863 there was a ‘public reaction to the Huxley’ book like the one we see today
with the molecular biology data in comparative studies between humans and chimpanzees.’
(Bizzo, 2006, p. 241). Already in the work by Huxley (1901) it is possible to find examples of
how it was, and sill is problematic to situate the humans in relation to other species of primates:
‘Among the many problems which came under my consideration, the position of the man species
in zoological classification was one of the most serious’ (Huxley, 1901, p. vii).
It is important to emphasize that there is no consensus, not even within the scientific
community, regarding the insertion of the Chimpanzee in the genus Homo, so there may be a
series of reasons other than that of a religious nature so that the teacher does not consider
this possibility, including lack of knowledge about the subject. It should be considered that
this possibility of insertion is based on the construction and reconstruction of the evolution of
8 H. M. SILVA ET AL.

the genus Homo, having been made from several characteristics, the morphology presented by
the fossils, such as brain size, but also by more subjective criteria, Such as the appearance of a
symbolic consciousness (Tattersall and Schwartz, 2009). This type of approach allows one to
glimpse the chimpanzee’s insertion as new nuances of Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee) become
apparent.
To illustrate this controversy regarding the definition of the genus Homo, it is interesting to
know that since Linnaeus defined this genus, almost three hundred years ago, a series of
discoveries of fossils and molecular biology has been reconstructing its evolution and its frontiers
with other genera and other species as a puzzle (Schwartz and Tattersall, 2015). Therefore, wishing
a clear position from secondary school teachers about this positioning may be difficult.
According to Collard and Wood (2015) the definition of the genus Homo and its phylogenetic
borders, is a matter of little study despite being a very important subject. There have been a
number of reinterpretations in the last 150 years and the criteria for the recognition of fossils as
belonging to this genre are still not clear. Finally, these authors suggest a redefinition of which
species of ancestral hominids should be considered belonging to the genus Homo, demonstrating
that there is no consensus on the subject. Nevertheless, even a teacher with a solid and continuing
background may find it difficult to situate the genus Homo in relation to its congeners, either
ancestors or currently living.
In the same line, Wood and Collard (1999) suggest that the current criterion for definition of
the genus Homo is complicated and impractical, being out of line with the volume and diversity of
fossils of other newly formed hominids Therefore need to be rethought. In the opinion of Cela-
Conde (1998) the organization of the human clade is, basically, a matter of convenience.
According to this author, there are no conclusive arguments to justify any choice.
According to Van Den Berghe (1990), there is a great difficulty of those related to the human
sciences in relation to the evolutionary perspective for the human being. This resistance could
partially explain the greater difficulty of Brazilian teachers accepting the insertion of the chim-
panzee in the genus Homo in relation to what Argentineans and Uruguayans answered, since the
human sciences have a strong participation in teacher training in Brazil (Gatti and Nunes, 2013).
This type of teachers’ difficulty can generate students’ greater rejection about evolution, since only
teachers who dominate this topic can break the impasse of the insertion of this knowledge in
relation to the previous students’ knowledge (Blackwell, Powell, and Dukes, 2003).
Finally, there may be other possibilities for explanation for teacher rejection, as well as
knowledge and religion, as the kind of difference between humans and chimpanzees. Teachers
may be considering the morphology, the appearance, which brings these primates closer to others
like the gorilla (Jungers and Susman, 1984). Another hypothesis would be that these teachers
would consider the issue of human culture, including language (Arbib, 2005), as something that
would create a distinct difference that could justify a separate gender for humanity.

Conclusion
From this study it can be concluded that the majority (80%) of surveyed teachers in the three
countries rejected the idea of including the chimpanzee in the genus Homo, suggesting the
conception of human beings having a special position in relation to other animal species, despite
evidence of current molecular biology. Religions in all countries were not significantly different;
therefore no specific influence could be tested regarding the inclusion of chimpanzee in genus
Homo. It must be recognized that research on chimpanzees and their relation to the genus Homo
is unclear about what criteria to use to justify this inclusion or not, but the close relationship
between species is supported by a solid body of evidence.
This study indicates that it is important to study further the training of biology teachers in the
three countries to verify the support of the discussions pointed out in this paper, how these
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

teachers are being trained and their knowledge regarding molecular biology, phylogeny and
evolution.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Arbib, M. A. 2005. “From Monkey-Like Action Recognition to Human Language: An Evolutionary Framework for
Neurolinguistics.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2): 105–124.
Artigas, M., T. F. Glick, and R. A. Martínez (2010). Seis Católicos Evolucionistas. El Vaticano frente a la evolución.
Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
Artigas, M., and D. Turbón. 2007. Origen Del Hombre. Ciencia, Filosofía Y Religión. Pamplona: EUNSA.
Ayala, F. 1994. La Teoría De La Evolución. De Darwin a Los Últimos Avances De La Genética. Madrid: Temas de hoy.
Bakewell, M., P. Shi, and J. Zhang. 2007. “More Genes Underwent Positive Selection in Chimpanzee Evolution than
in Human Evolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (18): 7489–7494. doi:10.1073/
pnas.0701705104.
Barbour, I. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science. San Francisco: Harper San Francis.
Basel, N., U. Harms, H. Prechtl, T. Weiss, and M. Rothgangel. 2014. “Students’ Arguments on the Science and
Religion Issue: The Example of Evolutionary Theory and Genesis.” Journal of Biological Education 48 (4): 179–
187. doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.849286.
Bizzo, N. (2006). O Berço Do Darwinismo E Suas Promessas Para O Homem. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 1:
229–246.
Blackwell, W. H., M. J. Powell, and G. H. Dukes. 2003. “The Problem of Student Acceptance of Evolution.” Journal
of Biological Education 37 (2): 58–67. doi:10.1080/00219266.2003.9655852.
Boesch, C., and M. Tomasello. 1998. “Chimpanzee and Human Cultures.” Current Anthropology 39 (5): 591–614.
doi:10.1086/204785.
Borja, C. (2007). Desconstruindo O Homem. Comciência, Revista Eletrônica de Jornalismo Científico, 2007.
Brooke, J. H. 1991. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Brosseau, O., and M. Silberstein. 2015. “Evolutionism(S) and Creationism(S).” In Handbook of the Evolutionary
Thinking in the Sciences, Eds. T. Heams, P. Huneman, G. Lecointre, and M. Silberstein, 881–896. New York:
Springer.
Bruce, E., and F. Ayala. 1979. “Phylogenetic Relationships between Man and the Apes: Electrophoretic Evidence.”
Evolution 33 (4): 1040–1056. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04760.x.
Caldeira, A. M., E. S. Araújo, and G. S. Carvalho. 2012. “Creationism and Evolution Views of Brazilian Teachers
and Teachers-To-Be.” Journal of Life Sciences 6 (1): 99–109.
Carroll, S. 2003. “Genetics and the Making of Homo Sapiens.” Nature 422 (6934): 849–857. doi:10.1038/
nature01495.
Carvalho, G. S. 2004. “Biology, Health and Environmental Education for Better Citizenship.” In Research &
Innovation - Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities. Brussels: European Commission
Carvalho, G. S., and P. Clément. 2007. “Projecto ‘Educação Em Biologia, Educação Para a Saúde E Educação Ambiental
Para Uma Melhor Cidadania’: Análise De Manuais Escolares E Concepções De Professores De 19 Países (Europeus,
Africanos E Do Próximo Oriente).” Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências 7 (2): 1–21.
Cela-Conde, C. 1998. “The Problem of Hominoid Systematics, and Some Suggestions for Solving It.” South African
Journal of Science 94 (6): 255–262.
Cela-Conde, C., and F. Ayala. 2003. “Genera of the Human Lineage.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 100 (13): 7684–7689. doi:10.1073/pnas.0832372100.
Chen, F.-C., and W. H. Li. 2001. “Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective
Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees.” The American Journal of Human
Genetics 68 (2): 444–456. doi:10.1086/318206.
Cheng, Z., M. Ventura, X. She, P. Khaitovich, T. Graves, K. Osoegawa, . . . E. Eichler. 2005. “A Genome-Wide
Comparison of Recent Chimpanzee and Human Segmental Duplications.” Nature 437 (7055): 88–93.
doi:10.1038/nature04000.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2005. “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and
Comparison with the Human Genome.” Nature 437 (7055): 69–87. doi:10.1038/nature04072.
Clément, P. 2006. “Didactic Transposition and the KVP Model: Conceptions as Interactions between Scientific
Knowledge, Values and Social Practices.” In Proceedings of ESERA Summer School, 9–18. Braga: IEC.
10 H. M. SILVA ET AL.

Collard, M., and B. Wood. 2015. “Defining the Genus Homo.” In Handbook of Paleoanthropology, Eds. W. Henke
and I. Tattersall, 2107–2144. Vol. 3. Heidelberg: Springer.
Cordeiro, A. 2008. “Gênese Da Vida Humana.” Ciência E Cultura 60 (1): 60–62.
Deloison, Y. 1997. “Description D’un Astragale Fossile De Primate Et Comparaison Avec Des Astragales De
Chimpanzés, d’homo Sapiens Et D’hominidés Fossiles: Australopithèques Et Homo Habilis.” Comptes Rendus
De l’Académie Des Sciences. Série 2. Sciences De La Terre Et Des Planètes 324 (8): 685–692.
Derek, W., M. Uddin, G. Liu, L. Grossman, and M. Goodman. 2003. “Implications of Natural Selection in Shaping
99.4% Nonsynonymous DNA Identity between Humans and Chimpanzees: Enlarging Genus Homo.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (12): 7181–7188. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100.
Gatti, B., and M. Nunes. 2013. Formação De Professores Para O Ensino Fundamental: Estudo De Curículos Das
Licenciaturas Em Pedagogia, Lingua Portuguesa, Matemática E Ciências Biológicas. São Paulo: FCC/DPE.
Goodman, M. 1999. “The Genomic Record of Humankind’s Evolutionary Roots.” The American Journal of Human
Genetics 64 (1): 31–39. doi:10.1086/302218.
Hasegawa, M., H. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. “Dating of the Human-Ape Splitting by a Molecular Clock of
Mitochondrial DNA.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 22 (2): 160–174.
Huxley, T. H. 1901. Man’s Place in Nature and Others Anthropological Essay. London: MacMillan Company.
Ingold, T. 1995. “Humanidade E Animalidade.” Revista Brasileira De Ciências Sociais 10 (28): 39–53.
Jungers, W., and R. Susman. 1984. “Body Size and Skeletal Allometry in African Apes.” In The Pygmy Chimpanzee,
ed. R. Susman, 131–177. Boston: Springer.
Khaitovich, P., I. Hellmann, W. Enard, K. Nowick, M. Leinweber, H. Franz, . . . S. Pääbo. 2005. “Parallel Patterns of
Evolution in the Genomes and Transcriptomes of Humans and Chimpanzees.” Science 309 (5742): 1850–1854.
doi:10.1126/science.1108296.
Livingstone, D. N. 2005. “Science, Text and Space: Thoughts on the Geography of Reading.” Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 30 (4): 391–401. doi:10.1111/tran.2005.30.issue-4.
Mitchell, M. W., and M. K. Gonder. 2013. “Primate Speciation: A Case Study of African Apes.” Nature Education
Knowledge 4 (2): 1.
Oro, A. 2008. Religião, Coesão Social E Sistema Político Na América Latina. Sao Paulo: iFHC/CIEPLAN.
Papanicolau, J. 2003. “Religión Y Ciencia En El Pensamiento De Juan Pablo II.” Teología 82: 83–113.
Prüfer, K., K. Munch, I. Hellmann, K. Akagi, J. Miller, B. Walenz, . . . S. Pääbo. 2012. “The Bonobo Genome
Compared with the Chimpanzee and Human Genomes.” Nature 486 (7404): 527–531. doi:10.1038/nature11128.
Rapchan, E. S. 2004. “Os Parentes De Nossos Parentes: Um Ensaio Sobre a Sociedade E as Culturas Dos
Chimpanzés Sob Uma Perspectiva Antropológica.” Revista De Etologia 6 (2): 101–117.
Schwartz, J. H., and I. Tattersall. 2015. “Defining The Genus Homo.” Science 349 (6251): 931–932. doi:10.1126/
science.aac6182.
Sibley, C., and J. E. Ahlquist. 1984. “The Phylogeny of the Hominoid Primates, as Indicated by DNA-DNA
Hybridization.” Journal of Molecular Evolution 20 (1): 2–15.
Silva, H. (2015). Professores De Biologia E Ensino De Evolução: Uma Perspectiva Comparativa Em Países Com
Contraste De Relação Entre Estado E Igreja Na América Latina “Teachers of Biology and Evolution Teaching: A
Comparative Perspective in Countries with respect to Contrast between Church and State in Latin America.”
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
Simon, E. L. 1989. “Human Origins.” Science 245: 1343–1350.
Tattersall, I., and J. H. Schwartz. 2009. “Evolution of the Genus Homo.” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences 37: 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202.
Van Den Berghe, P. L. 1990. “Why Most Sociologists Don’t (And Won’t) Think Evolutionarily.” Sociological Forum.
5 (2): 173–185. doi:10.1007/BF01112591.
Wildman, D E., Uddin, M., Liu, G., Grossman, L.I., Goodman, M. 2003. “Implications of Natural Selection in
Shaping 99.4% Nonsynonymous DNA Identity between Humans and Chimpanzees: Enlarging Genus Homo.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (12): 7181–7188. doi:10.1073/pnas.1232172100.
Williams, J. D. 2015. “Evolution versus Creationism: A Matter of Acceptance versus Belief.” Journal of Biological
Education 49 (3): 322–333. doi:10.1080/00219266.2014.943790.
Wood, B., and M. Collard. 1999. “The Changing Face of Genus Homo.” Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News,
and Reviews 8 (6): 195–207. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6505.