What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes

I thoroughly appreciate a book that can give me an excellent introduction to subject matter that I find fascinating. There's that, but then there's also the well-documented research, the depth of social thought and criticism, the occasionally entertaining style of expression and the ability to have me see things differently on certain subjects like the cultural context science operates within and social assertions more biologists have been making. He does go a bit overboard at times, which clearly shows his own deeply held views, but all in all I found it to be an excellent read. I've been conducting biological and anthropological research within the context of evolution for my own book project and this book provided me with some great insights, as well as other great resources to look up for continued study. I give it five stars largely for its depth of thought. My college mentor in the study of Religion (who studied with Joseph Campbell back in the 60s) always graded us on our depth of thinking when we submitted papers. It was our job to analyze the presumptions, implications and ramifications of arguments being made by different thinkers. Marks does a great job of pointing out those presumptions on the part of anthropologists from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century and of biologists today. I also think that his call for an anthropology of science (an ethnology of scientists) is brilliant. I was originally studying to be a professor of Philosophy before I turned to the study of Comparative Religion/Mythology and the philosophy and history of science was one of my greatest interests. He provides a fairly detailed historical outline of the scientific thought on evolution, apes, anthropology and genetics. Very eye-opening to see how scientific thinkers came to the conclusions that they did. The cultural context is a powerful influential force laden with presumption. It gives us some background to then look at how far science has come with regard to the influence of the culture they are born into. We are humans and we are going to bring some kind of presumption to the table. I think it deserves the reviews/synopsis above written by Guido Barbujani of the Massachusetts Medical Society and Ray Olson of the American Library Association.

Far too many people can see beyond black and white, right and left, conservative and liberal, etc., as many of the previous reviews illustrate. It seems especially true today, as few folks are exposed to (or can grasp) any argument that is not clearly set off from its exact opposite. This book is not about the expected. It's about that uncharted grey area between science and religion, critical thinking and dogma, apes and humans. Hooray for Marks for having the courage to write critically without pandering to the clichéd expectations of typical two-sided debates. Recommended for critical thinkers. Not for dogmatists--religious, scientific, or otherwise.

What it Means to by 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes written by Jonathan Marks is a book with razor-like sharpness and a powerful critique of primatology, comparative anatomy, and molecular anthropology.This book is a radical reassessment of science as we know it, showing ultimately how it has always been subject to social and political influences and teaching us how to think critically about modern findings. The author does some superb teaching spiced with witty prose making for a rather lively read.There is some powerful critiquing of reductionist claims about genetics, human behavior, cognitive abilities and racial differences. Reading this book will shed some light on the rather new science called molecular genetics. The author does stray too far and makes the book highly readable and somewhat easy to understand. You may not agree fully with the author's approach, but understanding of the science of human evolution requires an uncluttered mind... an open mind. This book covers areas of interest ranging from the differences between apes and humans to the biological and behavioral variations expressed in the human species. All in all, this book can and probably will stir up contraversy as the author tries to equate the common ancestry of humans and daffodils, not to mention similarities with the common fruit fly.

A catchy and provocative title is now de-rigueur for popular science books on the subject of genetics. It's somewhat surprising then that the message of WHAT IT MEANS TO BE 98% CHIMPANZEE is that it doesn't really mean that much at all. Marks takes a distinctly middle-of-the-road position on most of the scientific debate that has spun off from the human versus ape discussion. Marks says that "the extent to which our DNA resembles an ape's predicts nothing about our genetic similarity to apes, much less about any moral or political consequences arising from it."In chapters such as "The Ape in You", "How People Differ from One Another" "The Meaning of Human Variation" and "Human Nature" the author lays out his views on hot-button topics such as the biological reality of "races" and "nature vs nurture". Marks is not a believer in strict genetic determinism and therefore does not take a reductionist view of human nature - i.e genetics as a causal factor for everything. He's somewhat more of a humanist but this nod to a more environmentally deterministic view does not extend to an all embracing view of our fellow primates. The non-human primates - Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Oranutans have an increasing number of human advocates who say that there are moral and ethical consequences that stem from the genetic similarity between apes and humans. Primatologists such as Jane Goodall argue that the higher intelligence and emotional awareness of apes demands a distinction in how we view them, and more importantly, how we treat them. In the chapter "Human Rights for Apes?" Marks discusses the Great Ape Project and the long term objective of getting an U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Apes. Marks will have none of this and sees such positions as pretentiousness on the part of scientists. The science on animal consciousness is still inconclusive especially as it relates to the Great Apes. It's in the area of self-awareness and higher order thinking ("thinking about thoughts") where much of the debate takes place but this is not Marks' primary interest. Marks' main point is that there is a better approach to understanding these issues, one that is holistic rather than a binary "either/or" argument. Marks introduces us to his speciality in chapter one - "Molecular Anthropology" - and tells us that it combines the reductive power of genetics with the humanistic vision of anthropology. It thus allows practitioners to steer clear of ideologically influenced science. It's ironic because in arguing about the merits of his field of study, Marks himself comes across as tunnel-visioned and obviously enamored with his own view of things. This is the only problem with this otherwise well written and wide-ranging discussion on some of the current debates in science. Although Marks wouldn't support it because it talks about a sentient Gorilla, for me, Daniel Quinn's book ISHMAEL provides the best overview on this whole debate. Our scientific beliefs give us a view