What may prove the final blow to the traditional western view of the distinctness of human beings is now coming from new knowledge in genetics, and its implications for the way scientists classify humans and our nearest ancestors. For many years, most biologists assumed that humans evolved as a separate branch from the other great apes, including the chimpanzees and gorillas. This was a natural enough assumption, given the strength of our belief in how special we are. More recent techniques in molecular biology have enabled us to measure quite precisely the degree of genetic difference between different animals. We new know that we share 98.4 per cent of our DNA with chimpanzees. This is a very slight genetic difference. It is, for example, less than that between two deferent species of gibbon, which are separated by 2.2 per cent; or between the red-eyed and white-eyed vireos, two closely related North American bird species, the genes of which differ be 2.9 per cent. More significant still is the fact that the difference between us and chimpanzees is less than the 2.3 per cent that separates the DNA of chimpanzees from that of gorillas. In other words, we--not the gorillas--are the chimpanzees' nearest relatives. And all of the African apes--chimpanzees, gorillas and humans--are more closely related to each other than any of them are to orangutans.

On the basis of this discovery, some leading scientists, among them Richard Dawkins, lecturer in zoology at the University of Oxford, and Jared Diamond, profess of physiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, have suggested that it is time to do what Linnaeus lacked the courage to do" change the way in which we classify ourselves and that other African apes. As we say, Linnaeus classified humans not only as a separate species, Homo sapiens, but also as a separate genus, Homo, and even a separate family, Hominidae. That is how things have remained since the eighteenth century, Our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is not Homo but Pan (there are two species, Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus) while the gorilla is a separate genus, Gorilla gorilla, and the apes as a whole belong to the family Pongidae. We now have decisive evidence that this two hundred-year-old categorization had no basis other than the desire to separate us from other animals All taxonomists agree that the two species of gibbon belong in the same genus, and the same is true of the red-eyed and white-eyed vireos. We are closer to the chimpanzees than the different species of gibbons, or the different species of vireos, are to each other. We are also approximately as close to the gorillas as these different species are to each other. There is only one proper conclusion to draw. Since the rules of naming in zoology give priority to the name that was first proposed, this means that the two species of chimpanzee should be renamed Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus, and the gorilla, Homo gorilla. Or to follow Jared Diamond's more colorful way of putting it. we are 'the third chimpanzee'.

So we belong to the same family and the same genus as chimpanzees and gorillas Still, it may be said, we remain a distinct species, and that is enough to allow us to draw a clear line between human beings and all other animals. It is true that we remain a distinct species, but how clear is the line that this enables us to draw? Stephen Clark, professor of philosophy at Liverpool University, and R. I. M. Dunbar, professor of biological anthropology at University College, London, have both argued recently that the way in which we divide beings into species does not reflect a natural order of things, or a reality out there in the world, but rather the subjective judgments of those doing the classifying. The boundaries between species are not laid down by nature; they reflect our ways of classifying living thing. We often group together in the same species beings that look very different—the Pekinese and the wolfhound, for example—while separating beings that look very alike, as many different species of birds do. As Dunbar puts it:

She communicates in sign language, using a vocabulary of over 1000 words. She also understands spoken English, and often carries on 'bilingual' conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in English. She is learning the letters of the alphabet, and can read some printed words, including her own name. She has achieved scores between 85 and 95 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test.

She demonstrates a clear self-awareness by engaging in self-directed behaviors in front of a mirror, such as making faces or examining her teeth, and by her appropriate use of self-descriptive language. She lies to avoid the consequences of her own misbehavior, and anticipates other' responses to her actions. She engages in imaginary play, both alone and with others. She has produced paintings and drawings which are representational. She remembers and can talk about past events in her life. She under-stands and has used appropriately time-related words like 'before', 'after', 'later', and 'yesterday'.

She laughs at her won jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone, screams when frightened or angered. She talks about her feeling, using words like 'happy', 'sad', 'afraid', 'enjoy', 'eager', 'frustrate', 'made' and, quite frequently, 'love'. She grieves for those she had lost---a favorite cat who has died, a friend who had gone away. She can talk about what happens when one dies, but she becomes fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death or the death of her companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness with kittens and other small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only in pictures.

According to this, Jesus was an Ape? jt.

The Pope says that He-himself is a Fish! (avatar)?

¹Peter Singer, Rethinking Life and Death (NEW YORK: St. Martin's Griffin, MAY 1996) P.176-182.