How Human are Apes?

Until relatively recently, the distinction between humans and animals, including apes, was
so obvious that the necessity to define the two terms independently would have been seen
as unnecessary, if not absurd. However, recent revolutions in the world of science,
particularly Darwin’s theory of evolution, as well in general society, particularly the age of
Enlightenment, have thrown into question these previous attitudes as people moved away
from traditional religious viewpoints in favour of pure rationalist thinking. It is now not only
necessary to clearly define these two terms independently, but a prerequisite to any
discussion on the matter, as some begin to question whether there should in fact be any
distinction at all. The term “human” generally refers to a member of the species Homo
Sapiens, a term that was itself coined by Carl Linnaeus in his 18th-century work Systema
Naturae, (Spamer, Earle E, 1999), from the Latin words homo, meaning “man”, or
ultimately, “earthly being”, and sapiens, meaning “wise”. Apes are members of the
superfamily Hominoidea, a branch of Old World tailless simians native to Africa and
Southeast Asia. To what extent apes are, or should be considered, human is a topic that has
been the source of much heated debate among primatologists, anthropologists,
philosophers and evolutionary biologists in recent years. Since the beginning of the Great
Ape Project in 1993, this topic has been given global coverage as its practical implications
are considered and debated.

From a purely scientific perspective, the most obvious reason to consider apes as at least
somewhat human is their genetic similarity and shared evolutionary history. Due to recent
advances in technology, it has become possible to compare the genetic makeup of different
species, and thereby show how closely related they are genetically. Recent studies on the
DNA of mice, Old World monkeys, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans show
chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at
nonsynonymous sites (functionally important), and 98.4% at synonymous sites (functionally
much less important) (Wildman et. al, 2003). The authors of the report on these studies
themselves suggest that this functional DNA evidence supports the notion that the genus
Homo should include three extant species and two sub-genera, Homo (Homo) sapiens
(humankind), Homo (Pan) troglodytes (common chimpanzee), and Homo (Pan) paniscus
(bonobo chimpanzee) (ibid.). However, this conclusion doesn’t consider the fact that
although the genomes of apes and humans may be almost identical, it is the small genetic
differences which determine the substantial phenotypic differences between these two
groups. Focusing solely on the vast genetic similarities may be misleading when discussing
how human apes are, as perhaps the small genetic differences have a larger phenotypic
effect proportionally than the identical DNA sequences, therefore deserving larger
consideration in whether to include apes in the human genus.

The main other argument for considering apes as somewhat human is their similar
characteristics. Recent studies attempting to show language abilities in individually trained
apes have come under much scrutiny. In one of the most famous examples, the chimpanzee
Nim Chimpsky was taught to communicate using sign language in studies led by Herbert S.
Terrace, documented in his 1987 book. This experiment showed that non-human primates
are able to memorize the outcome of certain things and if they enjoy what they get from it,
they are more likely to reciprocate it because their memory shows them that they can get
what they want with certain signs. However, any reports that attempted to prove from this
experiment that apes have some form of language capabilities were widely criticised as it
was shown that Nim was merely repeating signs done by his trainers. Although memory and
capability of accurate imitation may be useful traits, and are certainly more advanced
among apes than any other group, they are a far cry from human language, both in terms of
complexity and functionality. Another shared characteristic between apes and humans is
the ability to use tools for desired outcomes. Both bonobos and chimpanzees have been
observed making "sponges" out of leaves and moss that suck up water and using these for
grooming. Sumatran orangutans will take a live branch, remove twigs and leaves and
sometimes the bark, before fraying or flattening the tip for use on ants or bees (Van Schaik,
et.al, 1996). However, the difference in both quantity and complexity of tool use between
apes and humans seems too vast for this to be a significant factor in considering apes as
somewhat human. Other animals also exhibit tool use, albeit to a lesser extent, so it merely
becomes a question of where to draw the line.
Charles Darwin wrote that “if man had not been his own classifier, he would never have
thought of founding a separate order for his own reception” (Darwin, 1871). However,
surely the fact that we are our own classifier is in itself the biggest proof of our unique
nature. The very fact that we have the curiosity, intellectual capacity and communicative
ability to study and discuss these questions is what sets us apart from other primates.
Chimpanzees do not classify themselves as a separate order taxonomically, nor do they sit
around a table discussing their evolutionary history and whether they ought to bestow
rights on other species. The fact that humans do have the ability to do these things at a very
advanced level is in itself the biggest reason to set them apart from other apes.

Another major issue with considering apes as somewhat human is that there is no defined
limit as to how far this could go. The founders of The Great Ape Project themselves admit
that their aims are limited to apes not due to any clearly defined scientific or cultural
boundary that exists between apes and other species, but rather because they believe that
practically they are more likely to achieve their aims by focusing on one group at a time,
starting with those most similar to humans (Cavalieri et.al, 1993). They fail to recognise that
this admission fundamentally undermines their entire thesis because the question then
moves from a scientific discussion on whether to include apes in the human genus to a
much broader debate on whether we are morally obligated to give rights to any living
creature outside our species.

In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that apes are more closely related to humans than any
organisms. This is demonstrated through DNA comparison as well as evolutionary history
studies. Furthermore, the characteristics displayed by apes often bears some resemblance
to human behaviour, particularly in the realm of emotion and communication. However, the
evidence that apes should therefore be considered human to some extent is scarce.
Experimentation is done on individual apes, not on the species as a whole, and any results
suggesting the acquisition of language or other functions take years to produce. Human
social cohesion, rulership over the world and its other species, intellectual capacity and
relative brain size would seem to set us apart from even our closest evolutionary relatives.
The mere fact that humans debate this and other abstract concepts is itself the biggest
reason to consider apes as the closest evolutionary relatives to humans, but not humans to
any extent themselves.

Cavalieri, Paola & Peter Singer (eds.) (1993). The Great Ape Project. Equality Beyond
Humanity. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Darwin, Charles (1871). The Descent of Man: And Selection in Relation to Sex.

Spamer, Earle E (29 January 1999). "Know Thyself: Responsible Science and the Lectotype of
Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758". Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences. 149 (1):
109–14.

Van Schaik, C.; Fox, E.; Sitompul, A. (1996). "Manufacture and use of tools in wild Sumatran
orangutans". Naturwissenschaften. 83 (4): 186–188.

Wildman, Derek E.; Monica Uddin, Guozhen Liu, Lawrence I. Grossman & Morris 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: 7181-7188