
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,009)
Recent Questions
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
- Do people with Down syndrome understand that they have abnormalities? How do they see the world? Are they self-conscious about their illness?
The concept of “human” is not identified with the concept of “monkey”.
In the biological sense, Homo sapiens is a species within the genus homo, which belongs to the family of hominids within the order primates. Great apes are included in other genera of the hominid family.
That is, we can be identical as hominids with great apes, as primates with all other apes, and as mammals we are identical with other mammals. But we are not monkeys.
However, this is the point of view of standard biological taxonomy. There is another approach called cladistic. It is controversial, and many biologists do not accept it. This approach builds phylogenetic kinship trees and denies polyphyletic taxa – that is, those that, with external kinship, descend from several different ancestors. So, within the strict hierarchy of the phylogenetic tree, cladistics requires that a species be assigned to the taxon to which its ancestors belonged. What does this mean in practice? Take fish, for example. Pisces formed a long time ago. And then some fish began to crawl out on land and gradually transform into amphibians. So, from the point of view of classical taxonomy, they formed a separate tree trunk – the trunk of amphibians. And from the point of view of cladistics, amphibians have branched off from fish, they are fish. That is, the difference is that classical taxonomy recognizes amphibians as an equally powerful taxon with fish (both fish and amphibians are classes), while for cladistics with its strict hierarchy requirement, this is unacceptable.Amphibians must be a child taxon. That is, for cladistics, all amphibians are fish, although not all fish are amphibians. This applies further, i.e. amphibian-descended reptiles – amphibians, reptilian-descended mammals, and reptilian birds. And the ape – descended humans are apes. But, I repeat, not all biologists find this approach acceptable.
In the legal sense, again, humans are not the same as apes – although killing a monkey is likely to be a crime, it is a very different crime from killing a human-animal cruelty or killing a rare / valuable animal-depending on the laws of a particular country. In our country, this isCriminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 245 andArticle 258.1 of the RF Criminal Code, respectively.
And why should the concept of man be IDENTIFIED with the concept of monkey? The concept of “person” is not an identifying, but a DISTINGUISHING concept. That is, all of us – both apes and humans-belong to the same order of PRIMATES. But any specific view is ALLOCATED to a separate view based on some characteristics. So a person, being a primate (essentially an ape), is still EXACTLY a PERSON. Having the characteristic defining features for this:
upright walking (biped):
S-shaped spine
arched foot
cup-shaped pelvis
hair reduction
the thumb is opposed to the rest
ability to fine motor skills of fingers
the brain part of the skull is larger than the facial part
small canines that do not protrude beyond the line of other teeth
reduction of brow ridges
highly developed brain
omission of the larynx and hyoid bone; articulate speech; imaginative thinking
chin protrusion
mastoid process of the temporal bone
articulate speech
lack of ovulation visualization in females