primate rights

Evolution is a fact and a theory, not a conspiracy. Evolution is the gradual development from one thing into another. This can even be seen through adaptation from the migration of humans from Africa into Europe, changing of niche climates. In response to premise nine, it does not matter at all what one actually believes in because just because someone believes something, that doesn"t make it true or a fact. Evolution has scientific backing, religion, does not. Your premise ten is irrelevant. The efficiency of human adaptation is not what originally gave people rights. Rights were given only to people that met certain criteria, white, male, educated, and owned property. My premise seventeen is relevant because it shows that even though humans did not always have the ability of speech, that didn"t diminish their language skills. Before speech, humans had the same form of language that great apes nowadays have, hand-gestures, bodily movement, grunts, etc. Which means that great apes are developing similarly, but seemingly faster, to humans and may soon develop the ability of cognitive function and articulation. People from all walks of life can relate to the saying "you learn something new every day." Learning does not necessarily correlate to academia. You don"t need to be in school to learn things you didn"t already know before. The same can be said for teaching. For example, teaching a child how to walk, talk, and the difference from right and wrong. And as for reading, most things in life require the ability to read. From job applications to passing billboards, reading is a necessity in life. It is not a majority of society, it is everyone, in a literal sense. Premises 19, 20, & 21 all show that people who now have rights. People who fought for those rights, people who others that don"t fall into those categories also fought for those groups of people to have rights. Not everyone believed those people had rights, just as people now believe that great apes should not have certain rights. I do not see the relevance of premise fourteen. In response to premise fifteen, just because one chimp was unable to do something, does not mean the majority of chimps are unable to do that same thing. I do not see the relevance to premises sixteen and seventeen, as all great apes, including chimpanzees, have the ability to walk upright, albeit, for a short period of time. In response to premises eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, studies done on feral children show that they cannot be integrated successfully into regular society, cannot even attempt regular social behavior. And the "chimps doing clever things on TV" are taught at a young age, much like people, how to follow commands and such. In response to premise twenty two, it is quite obvious that something like a wild animal cannot be integrated well into human society, but apes can be taught how to behave and be more human-like. The same argument can be made as before, feral children/adults, can also fit into that category as "essentially wild animals" which can"t be integrated into human society, so by that reasoning, as soon as people lose their "human-like" qualities, they also lose their rights. In response to question one, social function can be seen with great apes. They can communicate with each other, they have tribal boundaries, if a rival ape move into their territory, they will attack, much like war. It has also been recorded that they can create and use tools in order to get and eat food. In response to question two, no apes cannot be taught how to be human, because the difference between apes and humans is not what they learn but genetics. Apes can be taught to b human-like though. For example trained commands, hand signs, etc. In response to question three, I am not trying to argue that apes and humans are equal and apes should be afforded the same rights. I am simply arguing that apes should have certain rights, such as the right to be represented in court, also that certain crimes also apply to apes, like kidnapping, imprisonment, murder, rape, assault, etc. Not the rights that would include superior cognitive function, such as voting, because they cannot make such decisions, giving them that right would be redundant.