Hi, I'm not at all sure why you seem to be reacting so strongly to this. Graywolf asked for references to a claim about human and chimp relatedness, and I provided a couple of references, that's all.
> You don't have to tell me what the point of the article was, > I knew that when I saw who published it. You appear to think that PETA published it. Where did you see anything that suggests that, and what difference does it make to anything? > I don't buy it. Nobody's asking you to buy anything. > It's not genetics alone that defines a genus. Obviously not, or the article would be pointless. The article is arguing for them to be defined on a more consistently genetic basis. The purpose of the Linnaean system is to show genetic relatedness. As we are able to be more and more accurate and sure of our knowledge about this, so the taxonomies have to be rearranged. That is standard practice. > PETA has a political agenda. Yes. They'd like people to treat other animals better. So what? The article consists mainly of a scientific claim which is not seriously disputed by anybody, but which is certainly open to falsification. If you think the science is wrong, publish. It goes on to make a proposal for rearranging a taxonomy to suit the current facts, then shows some of the things that such a change might imply or entail. You're perfectly free to disagree with the implications, which are a matter of opinion and argument. > Taking their article as proof of anything > is like taking the ravings of the Nazis as proof that Jews > Slavs and Gypsies are sub human. > Who has claimed that it is proof of anything? It is an argument in favour of a position. You can take it or leave it, it's up to you. Unlike the Nazis, the people behind the Great Ape Project - that's who published the article, not PETA - are not killing anyone, or forcing anyone to accept their views. Bob.
