E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMotion-capture artist Andy Serkis talks about the premise of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."
Experts say the premise behind "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," the latest movie about intelligent chimps gone wild, is almost laughable. But they're not laughing about the wider issues raised by the cross-species romp — ranging from the genetic humanization of other animals, to the way we treat our fellow apes, to the long-running debate over the definition of "humanness."
Let's start by acknowledging that there's no way just administering a drug or fiddling with a few genes can confer human-type intelligence or language ability on chimpanzees or other non-human primates. "The scientific notion is preposterous," Jon Cohen, author of the book "Almost Chimpanzee," told me today.
Cohen said the oft-cited claim that there's a 1 percent difference between the human and chimp genetic code has led people to believe mistakenly that the two species are separated only by a few molecular tweaks here and there. When the differences in non-coding DNA are taken into account, that difference rises to 4 or 5 percent. Chimps and humans don't even have the same number of chromosomes (48 for chimps vs. 46 for humans).
"We have to get away from this vastly oversold notion that we're the same," Cohen said. "Let's grow up, and let's stop that."
The differences range from physiological factors (chimps don't suffer from the kinds of heart disease and cancer that afflict humans), to behaviors (humans can swim, chimps generally can't), to cognitive abilities. For years, primatologists have debated whether chimps can use language, or teach concepts to each other, or do math, or identify with the plight of someone else — but there's no debate that humans put chimps to shame in those departments.
Cohen thinks there are several factors behind our desire to think that chimps are like us:
- Save the chimps: Conservationists may emphasize the similarities as a strategy to build up support for preserving wild chimpanzees in Africa, where they are an endangered species. "It works, because the public cares about chimps more than any other species," Cohen said. "But come on — we care about whales and elephants, and they don't look like us."
- Support for evolution: A long time ago, some Darwinists pointed to the similarities as evidence of evolution at work. But that argument may be counterproductive now, since it's clear that humans and chimps had common ancestors that didn't look or act like either species. Current evolutionary theory rests on a wide array of evidence, and not just on the human-chimp connection. "We don't need that argument any longer," Cohen said.
- We are not alone: "We're fascinated by the notion that we can communicate with species on other planets, that the universe isn't as lonely as it appears to be," Cohen observed. "If we could somehow have a chimp that was more like us, it would satisfy this deep science-fiction desire for communication with others, and make us feel less lonely. But it's a fantasy."
So unless you have 5 million years to spare, don't expect to take over the world by breeding an army of intelligent chimps. An army of intelligent robots is a more likely option. However, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" does provide an opportunity for some serious reflection of the wholly human variety. Among the issues to reflect upon are these:
- Humanized species: It's becoming more common to transplant our genes into other species — for instance, the mice who were given a "humanized" version of the gene linked to language and speech. Humanized mice are even being created in college science projects. The trend has rung alarm bells at the British Academy of Medical Sciences, which is calling for a ban on experiments that might give human characteristics to other primates. (Note the "Planet of the Apes" angle in this video.) Last year, U.S. bioethicists made a similar call for regulation, saying that it would be "ethically unacceptable" to conduct humanization research with apes. (Here's a scary sentence: "Imagine the life of the transgenic chimpanzee that, while no more self-aware than other chimps, is hairless, walks erect, lacks long canine teeth, or vocalizes like a human.")
- 'Species-ism' at work: Even if chimpanzees are not as humanlike as some people may think, should they and other great apes be given special treatment? European regulators think so: They have ruled out most biomedical research on apes, while allowing experimentation on monkeys, our more distant relatives on the primate family tree. A similar debate over invasive chimpanzee research is simmering in the United States. Cohen says "species-ism" is a natural human tendency. We value mice over mosquitoes, monkeys over mice, and men over monkeys. "We do feel closer to some species than others, and we feel closest to the great apes because we're in the same family," he said. "But that doesn't mean tha we're them and they're us."
- Defining humanness: Some may question whether chimps should qualify as "persons" under the law, but no one would confuse a chimp with a human. In fact, Cohen argues that one of the main reasons to study chimpanzees is to track down the roots of the differences between our species and our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. "It clarifies what a human is, and what it means," he said.
One of the closing lines of Cohen's book resonates particularly strongly as "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" goes into its big opening weekend: "Humans will determine the fate of chimpanzees. Chimpanzees of course will have no say in the fate of humans. And that may be the single most conspicuous difference between the two species."
Do you agree? Feel free to weigh in with your comment below. And, oh, by the way: Let me know how you liked the movie.
Extra credit: If you're looking for a blockbuster movie that's on firmer (but equally scary) scientific ground, Cohen suggests keeping an eye out for "Contagion," a meticulously researched action-thriller that's due to debut next month. Looks like it has a dynamite cast — Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, to name a few — but the trailer is making me feel a little skittish about putting my fingers on the computer keyboard.
More about chimpanzees and humans:
- Did chimp and human ancestors interbreed?
- Dogs (not chimps) are most like humans now
- How humans got big brains and barbless penises
- Give a chimpanzee a video game and ...
- Search for chimpanzees on msnbc.com
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I think that the chimpanzees have already evolved and are now occupying the halls of congress. LOL
You insult the chimps with such a statement :D
Personally, I believe all chimps, apes, gorillas and monkeys evolved from politicians....................................might throw in pigs and cockroaches, too...............
I agree with Bob to an extent. Poor chimps run a much more efficient social structure that we do.
But dare I say it? (I know I'll regret this) Chimps can rise as far as boosters can take them. (everyone say, "unggg" at the same time.
On the paleontological time scale, there's no telling where they might find themselves it 10 million years, but since we will have cleverly eradicated ourselves by then, we'll never know.
How high can they rise? . . . they can be presidents.
The community that collapsed this comment may have been some offhanded, but then so are several other remarks. See the other comments I have posted.
Okay. You are all sort'a correct.
The book," Planet of the Apes," was never intended to suggest that chimpanzee (Pan Troglodyte) could, or would, ever take direct control of the planet from the Human Species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). And that applies to all non-Human apes--Pan Paniscus, Pongo Pegmaeus, etc. Jane Goodall has stated, "The difference between Human and chimp is an unbridgeable chasm." So, it just ain't gonna' happen. Take a sturdy metal baton, and a few good whacks at a chimp--the chimp will disappear, screaming. Nail it in the throat, it's dead. Chimps have no concept or ability in matters of physics, while Humans seem to understand some basic physics as early as age 2-years.
Like much good science fiction, the book is a satire on the human condition, politics, etc. Its intent is to remind the Human Species that they can and do behave at times, more like their wild cousins than do than the more sentient creatures that which we strive to be. e.g. In the vacuum of an intelligent species (Man), apes have taken over the planet.
It is worth mentioning too, that there are only about 150,000 chimps, 15,000 gorillas, and 10,000 orangutans left on Planet Earth. That's just about the population of one small city. Unchecked, the wild apes could be only zoo, lab, and show specimens within 10-15-years time.
And now that you know that neither you, nor your species are in imminent danger of an ape takeover, perhaps we can afford the "disappearing apes" a little piece of wilderness, and some solitude?
And yes, I too would welcome some changes in Washingtion D.C. A sad, sad lot.
Our understanding of and facility with genetic manipulation is evolving, so it is interesting to wonder what future possibilities will be. Remember that the purpose of science fiction is to flesh out these ponderances; look around and compare the ideas and scenarios that old sci-fi novels introduced with the realities we're living with now.
By the way, Andy Serkis has been classical actor for decades: Hamlet; Oliver Twist; for most of you, 13 Going on 30; and many more. Try not to reduce the importance of things you know nothing about.
RTMV
How high can Apes rise??? Just look at our elected officials ....
The main thing I got from this is how arogant this Cohen fellow is. Basically calling people laughable and stupid for beleiving in certain things. Cohen needs to grow up and learn that a movie is fiction. It is not meant to be real.
I find it so interesting that some comments are deleted while others are allowed to remain. How is this freedom of speech? When this site promotes something called "The Greenhouse," you have to wonder who's monitoring the site, or if it's really the community collapsing certain comments. FREEDOM OF SPEECH should always prevail.
Despite the obvious fiction of the movie, "humanizing" lab animals is something that has been debated seriously among many ethicists and scientists. The term is of course misleading, as the author clearly states, since we cannot turn a mouse human by tweaking a few genes. As someone with experience in transgenics (swapping genes from one species to another) I can absolutely say this is true. The ethics debates over this issue are about laying guidelines for unforeseen advanced work that may be technically possible many decades and centuries in the future. These debates are not about current work being done.
Just because we can imagine this science running away to a point of no return does not mean that it will. We must remember why scientists do these experiments - it is not simply because they can. For instance, if we want to understand how Alzheimer's disease progresses, or how certain cancers develop, we need to see these diseases in action in living creatures. We know that certain human genes can lead to these diseases. Instead of dissecting thousands of human beings, these genes are swapped into mice in order to watch how it interacts to produce disease.
So the work is necessary and that is why it is done. There is a market to cure disease. Further, most of these genes are associated with disease. We are not producing healthy super species that could conceivably escape and thrive in the wild. Scientists do not do things simply because they can. There is no conceivable reason to produce human-chimp hybrids, unless we believe that we would use them to do menial tasks as slaves. This of course would put millions out of work and be ridiculously expensive. I really don't see a market for that, so I think we are all safe from this extreme scenario.
It is obviously arrogance that assures most that humans and apes cannot be compared just as the arrogance of racism and slavery was justified for millenia. In spite of scientific proof being easily produced by crossbreeding the human race with the various apes and seeing if a fertile cross can exist. In spite of the different chromosome number it is easily possible. It could be argued that it would be unethical to not find out.
Donna,
Calm down about your freedom of speech. Private companies can censor speech all they want. The First Amendment only protects us from government sponsored censorship...
Since man didn't actually evolve from Apes I would say they are pretty much stuck with what they are. Wild Animals. While they can display some examples of cognitive thought they will never be smart enough to build and fly a plane, go to the moon unless we send them there etc. Basically if evolution were really true why do we still have Apes, Chimps and all forms of primates. So somewhere alone the line what yu are saying is that One Chimp decided he had enough of living the chimp life and started the evolution cycle into man while the other chimps said we like it here.
........But if there were no apes around, there would be no one to teach liberals better manners.............................
Everyone knows that Tea Baggers, Repugs, and Cons don't even qualify for the Order of Primates. In fact, if you wanted to find out the correct catagorization of these individuals, you would need to look to the reptilian world.
Oh, my, my...
If you possessed even a junior high-level education, perhaps you'd realize exactly how stupid that 'question' really is.
That's a pretty short sighted look at things. God may be working with humans now, why not apes in a few million years? What makes us so special (besides our unique ability to hate each other for non-survival related criteria)? Classic human hubris.
You claim to be descended from your grandfather. Yet you have a cousin. That clearly proves your "descent from grandfather" theory is false, right?
What you said and what I just said are exactly the same. Apes aren't our ancestors, they're our cousins. We're all branches off the same tree.
The reason we still have chimps , and the reason why they have not all evolved is simple. They interbred with the Negroes in Africa and have been mentally challenged as a species ever since.
@Jon.....you talk as if evolution is a proven fact when it comes to apes and man. It's only a THEORY Jon. Until it's proven.....it will remain that way.
@Seahorse
Dude, do us all a favor and go to school or something.
In science everything is "theory" because you cannot prove something by experiment, you may only disprove by experiment. Gravity is theory. Relativity, theory. You are an idiot, fact. Conservatives should have paid better attention in school, fact. It is no wonder you people want to cut the department of education, pell grants, and grad school loan interest subsidies.
Ilikiepoltics
Talking to them (right wing crazy people) is like talking to an ape. They don't understand. They'll just scratch their ass and maybe throw their own poo at you. But nothing of meaning just nonsense.
Evidence that there are some who are closer cousines to our friendly apes.
And as ape I meant Chimp. :)
And left wing crazy people are any different? In the end you go to far any either direction you get the exact same results with one exception, the right usually has a better economy......other than that the citizen suffers the same conseguences, what difference does it make whether its called a stalag or a gulag?
@Vince - there's no reason to be vulgar. Your response was pretty reptilian all on its own, displaying you as little better than those you criticize. Don't assume that because the pundits you see and hear in the media aren't intellectual giants that the rest of us aren't. I'm a Republican, a conservative, and I support the Tea Party ideal of a federal government accountable to the people for its actions. I don't agree with every Republican position across the board, and I argue toward a sane conservatism based on Constitutional principles rather than religious demagoguery.
Oh, one more thing: I have a documented IQ falling somewhere north of 160. Calling me names won't change that.
Wow Tim, just wow. An unprovoked racial slur and it's not even noon on Sunday. I mean that was really the first thought that you felt needed to be expressed this morning?
As for the real conversation here: There are no politics in science, only facts. Politicians use or ignore facts for political reasons. Evolution is a fact. The denial of evolution is done for politics. To date, there is no argument that can be made against evolution that cannot and has not been overcome by evidence. You can try to come up with one. You can try to repeat the ones you've heard. But they are all failed theories. Evolution is solid.
/
Modern science knows that man did not evolve from monkeys. Prior to 1953, and the discovery of genes, it was an argualble belief. But the genetic code is impossible to break. No two dogs will ever mate, and create a non dog. Evolution is impossible. All Darwin noted is that there were birds on an island. Food became scarce, and the only available food was inside shells. Only birds with long beaks survived, thus only birds with long beaks mated. The average length of the birds beaks grew. Evolution? Far from it. Simply survival of the fittest. The most wildest faith darwin's theory held was abiogenisis: the creation of life from non-life. Such as two lifeless rocks slamming together, and forming life. Lol. It would be cool if it worked. I'm not certain on all of the universes unknowns, but i am certain that's now how we were created. That's the farthest fetched faith of all.
But, you know what they say, don't you Eric? It's all due to..............(drum roll)........................................................M-U-T-A-T-I-O-N!!!!!
Tah dah!!!
Seems there were a hell of a lot (in fact an astronomic number) of mutations that worked out just right......hmmm...........I wonder what the odds are........astronomic???
I'm with you......I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution.
So, Eric, do you want to be the first one to tell the kid with Down's Syndrome he's no longer human because he has 37 Chromosome pairs and can't possibly be one of us?
Go for it, bubba...
Really? So, on the one hand, you simply can't believe that different species are capable of adapting, changing and evolving over long periods of time. But at the very same time, you have absolutely no problem whatsoever believing that an invisible, omnipotent being in the sky actually exists and is responsible for creating everything? Wow.
@Eric
Ahh, another person who either didn't go to school at all or didn't care enough to pay attention. You already had all the answers right?
"Evolution? Far from it. Simply survival of the fittest"
Hmm, survival of the fittest...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah!!! Biology class, when being taught about.... wait for it.... DARWIN!!!
From wikipedia, the first time the phrase survival of the fittest was ever used, coined by Herbert Spencer.
"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
Oh, but it gets better.
Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]
Don't be sad though Eric, just read a book and think before you post. :)
I think what all of you need to consider is the fact that on his death bed, Darwin said that he was wrong. He claimed that God is real and that He created everything. By the way, if the world and everything on it formed from a small piece of dust, WHERE in the world did that small piece of dust come from? It also had to be created from somewhere. And yet no one has proved where it came from.
Wow the American school system is indeed in tatters!
Neither Darwin nor the theory of evolution ever postulated that two dogs would mate to produce a squirrel - or a retarded monkey/frog. Arguing against that scenario does not make you appear smart. Read a book, then get back to us.
Why does everything have to break down into political opinion, can't people do anything without trying to say one ideology is better than another? Every time I read comments on just about any news it breaks down into childish political jokes, everyone needs to grow up and pull the stick out. Also trying to say that evolution is false because there are still monkeys shows great ignorance. There is very little difference between the validity of a proven theory(evolution) and a proven law(gravity)
Childish political jokes keep me laughing instead of crying. As long as the post has something about chimps in it, it's ok with me. The funny ones are the concrete creationism comments. No one has any imagination. Ironically, the sense of humor is one of the things that sets us apart from much of the animal kingdom (we assume. I guess they could all be laughing on the inside and we'd never know it.)
Why does everything have to break down into political opinion...
Perhaps it's because the State has infested itself into every aspect of our lives, and politics is the Art of trying to gain control of the State? If the State is everywhere and into everything, then everything will have a political debate attached to it thereby. And that's the way Statists want it. So, there is your answer.
Why do you think the more Statist the country the more Ministers of _____— there are - of Art, of Commerce, of Education, of Culture, etc etc etc? We call them Secretaries or Czars, but the concept is the same.
I would love nothing more than to reduce the State from our every day lives and deal with one another as human beings. We've lived long enough under the "Force First" formed by the Two-Party System. And as long as Force is the first option, and the State is every where at once, weighing every interaction and its political cost will be our only option.
Politics, technically, is the art of the possible...not the art of trying to gain control of the state.
your indoctrination is complete
Apes are actually doing pretty well for themselves - they've already formed their first political party. They've decided to call it "the Tea Party".
Hey Poindexters , it's just a movie not reality . Give it a rest .
Apes will do a better job in congress. When the radical ss tea party piss them off, they will jump on them an kick the s--t out of them. Then eat their brains. The USA will be a better place.
Chris, evolution isn't a proven theory, that's an oxymoron. It's just a theory.
All these too! They are just theories.
atomic theory:
attribution theory:
Bohr theory:
correspondence theory:
domino theory:
field theory:
game theory:
When will man face the facts of the bible, and discard all these man made theories?
Note: I wish all the people who do not know what a theory is would find out. Also, my comment was satire.
The confusion generally comes from the fact that there are a couple different definitions of the word "theory". Most people take theory to mean an unsupported guess. However in the context of science, this is incorrect. A scientific theory is a framework which supports and predicts observable data gained via experiment or naturalistic observation. It has nothing to do with taking a wild guess as to what might be happening, and then trying to turn that guess into a law or somesuch.
Scientific Theory is nothing more than a belief system. A system in which a group of scientists generally accepted (for the time being). These theories can be redefined or discarded over time. A scientific theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. It requires one to believe in the concepts of scientific laws. All of which are tweaked (supposedly for the better) as we gain new (supposed) knowledge.
How high could apes rise?.......Apparently as high as the White House and congress.
Just look at Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama......
we have an ape in the White House
bd - that is offensive .... to insult apes like you just did
Well at least an ape is smarter than that last monkey who lived there!
Why are these comments so stupidly and narcissistically oriented toward human politics? The great apes are neither superior to nor inferior to humans. they are who they are: simply a different species, and a highly evolved one, and its members have nothing to do with the idiocy and ego of human politics, or anything associated with it. The great apes are a species unto themselves, and one that is undergoing severe assault by humans. Get over yourselves and do something good for the world by foregoing your precious petty politics for a minute and help save these animals who may not have much time left.
I think they have a lot we could learn from. I've met a lot of people in the course of my life, and I don't think a great ape would lie to me. That makes them better in at least on respect. Ok, they can be unpredictable, but I've been stabbed in the back by my "best" friends, so that's a wash. All in all, I prefer the company of "dumb" animals.
The great apes are quite inferior to humans. In fact, all species on earth are inferior to humans which is why we are atop the food chain. I'm pretty sure that apes cant wipe out the human race. Can they?
Catfish:"The great apes are quite inferior to humans. In fact, all species on earth are inferior to humans which is why we are atop the food chain. I'm pretty sure that apes cant wipe out the human race. Can they?"
It looks like someone hasn't set foot inside a biology classroom in the last few decades -- "food chain" is a term that hasn't appeared in textbooks for a long time. It's a lot more complicated and interconnected than just "who eats whom." Just judging who is "inferior" based on diet is silly anyway. Sharks eat people, people eat sharks. " Mosquitos eat us, but we don't eat them.
"Inferior" is a hilariously unscientific concept, anyway. If you judge by how long a species has been around, we're beat by crocodiles; by biomass the insects clobber us; ditto number of individuals; and in suvivability we're outclassed by the cockroach. The one area where we're preeminent is in our ability to alter our environment, and even there, in recent years we've mostly used that ability to make larger and larger areas unsuitable for supporting us. Sure we can wipe out the apes, but we can wipe out ourselves just as easily -- should that really give us a sense of superiority?
If the history of life on earth was the length of your armspan, our entire history would be less than a fingernail long. And if we don't get a lot smarter soon, we'll go down in the annals of life as just another failed experiment.
it's a madhouse! a madhouse!
I think the main reason that so many people are willing to compare apes/gorillas/etc to politicians is that whenever there are observers, either of the previous mentioned will start flinging poo. Nothing is really accomplished by it, but boy does it stink!
There is that undeniable similarity between apes and people. Not just politicians, I might add.
Cornelius: [reading from the sacred scrolls of the apes]
Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.
The planet of the apes is now, and you are them. Bru ha ha ha ha ha!
Excellent quote! ;)
A little bit of a parallel these days in the conflict of interest of scientists and money controlling all knowledge in these areas. ;)
How high can apes rise. As high as the moon. Humans are in the order mammalia and the order primates. Our family is hominidae, (hominidae = great apes) which also includes chimps and gorillas. Our genus is Homo and our species is sapiens.
That we are mammals should be apparent to even the most superstitious/religious person. That we are primates is also apparent. We are arguably the most evolved intelligence on this planet.
Sorry, meant to write, class mammalia.
How high can the apes rise? Better question is how low can humans go? I think the apes are better then us already in many ways, after all, we do have a striking resemblence to the virus, one of natures simpilest "life" forms. Like the virus, we consume recklessly and over reproduce, slowly & painfully killing our host (earth and all other life on it).
And as far as Evolution?? i think we already evolved to our peak and now we are slowly de-evolving....religion was the first sign of de-evolving & becoming parisitic in nature....our prehistoric primate ansestors which we share with the ape jumped off at the right branch and went thier own way just in time.
Who writes this garbage....This is what you get after 40 years of illegal drugs...genetic deformities......
Science has proven that mankind DID evolve from the Simion species. Unfortunately mankind did not inherit their intellince.
Correction to recent post. Ment to say Simian species.
Research the existance of man from the discoveries. The earliest man was found in Africa and in the other regions surrounding Africa. There is documentation.
Search Encarta, for the evolution of mankind. And prehistoric man. What I have remarked is not my words, but that of science.
We are running the place aren't we? If you don't believe we evolved from apes, your an idiot. Your life is planet of the apes. We are just highly evolved animals. Thats it.
Big difference between animals and humans, is we have the ability to use reason and logic, rationality . I dont know of any animals that do that. i could be wrong. We are just humans, created and living here making a mess of things :D
it depends on what you regard as an "ape." the "great apes" might be inclusive of all hominids and hominoids if you go back far enough on the evolutionary scale... the late Miocene would be a good place to start looking... i didn't see any distinction of chronospecies as opposed to any contemporary distribution of biogenetic populations... journalistic license allows congenital nitwits to play with reality in an unrealistic way
It's planet of the human apes, and we are destroying everything.
I reiterate, the community that collapsed original comment must have fallen asleep at the wheel. There are several comments that are more inappropriate then the one I made.