P
puzzleannie
Guest
shame on you, Ridgerunner, this is serious stuff, listen to the man talking he is an authority, no joking allowed on this topic, you just hush, now, I am going to climb back into my tree
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
True. We should be more respectful.
http://www.canpages.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/travis_chimpanzee.jpeg
He’s working on his Ph.D. in evolutionary science.
There are some of those advanced skills at work. I hope to be able to do that someday.
H
hecd2
Guest
You produce lots of words but demonstrate a complete inability to back up your misrepresentation of the research. And the reason you can’t back it up by reference to the research is because it’s not in the research, and no quantity of bluster will change that. You have an ugly contempt for truth (you’re not at all interested in discovering and representing what the research actually shows) and a determination to make propaganda in any way possible - an archetype of the belief that the ends, however dishonest or unsavoury, justify the means.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Hmm, I’m not seeing that quite in that way in the research. Can you give me a citation to something in the research that discusses the modern family structure? The closest to that that I see is in “Re-examining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus Ramidus” where there is some careful analysis of bipedality, loss of the SCC and reproductive crypsis and where there is also some speculation. But I don’t see anything about the modern nuclear family (except in the sense that vertebrates in biology have a range of reproductive strategies, that humans are no exception, nor are their strategies unique, and one would expect the strategies - pair bonding, random mating, harems, female selection, adulterous mating and so on - to be reflected in various aspects of physiology and anatomy - such as the loss of SCC and minimal sexual dimorphism in Ardipithecus). If the SCC and sexual dimorphism was lost early in hominin evolution then that has implication for the social structures of the human lineage, don’t you think?
But are you suggesting that the conclusions about the social structures of Ar ramidus itself which necessarily are correlated with small canines, bipedality and the forest environment will necessarily be overturned, because that was your original assertion.
Well let’s see just where the research claims that Ar ramidus explains modern human social structure; but surely our social structures are influenced by our evolutionary history.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
My misrepresentation of the research was based on direct quotes from Owen Lovejoy, biological anthropologist at Ohio’s Kent State University and one of the primary authors on the journal package. This is a point you’ve avoided.
The reason I don’t need to say more is that I responded to the words of the evolutionist himself. If his claims in the article are “not in the research” then your problem is with Mr. Lovejoy and not with me.
On the contrary – I displayed the evolutionary truth in all of its glory. You simply confirmed it for me. Now it’s my option to either accept the worldview that my evolutionary masters demand – or continue to hold their words suspect. The option you provide for me is to not listen to what someone like Mr. Lovejoy actually states in a news article.
Again, for you it is “dishonest” to comment on the quoted remarks of the evolutionist who is a principle author of the study. It’s “unsavoury” to laugh at the obvious contradiction in those remarks.
Aside from the fact that this moral outrage that you feel necessary to express is contradicted by materialist-determinism itself (I’m moved by genetics and environment to respond to news articles) you walk away from the blatantly obvious contradictions offered in Mr. Lovejoy’s commentary. This is the kind of “honesty” I’ve come to expect from evolutionary scientists.
Again, the evolutionist claims that the “old idea” (chimp to man) is “totally incorrect” and it should be replaced by a new idea – (man to chimp).
You are supposedly shocked that anyone would laugh at that.
But this only confirms how out-of-touch with reality you really are. I could pick any number of strangers off the street and tell them that evolutionists are now claiming that chimps evolved from humans and there would be a lot of jokes about that - and a lot of laughter.
The only people who cannot laugh at that ridiculous concept are the propagandists and the people who have been completely taken in by the deceptions.
I can observe how sensitive and agitated you are on this topic. As usual, you defend your theory by attacking. You said not one word about the actual quotes in the news article, but instead tried to deflect the focus.
Apparently, evolutionists can make any claims they want in the public media and nobody is permitted to comment about that.
No amount of sarcasm and ridicule from me will be able to penetrate the wall of absurdity, contradiction and nonsense that surrounds the evolutionary encampment. That much I’ve learned.
I have also learned that it’s not right to laugh at the idea that chimps are more advanced than humans, because chimps can climb trees better than humans can.
You may want to continue attacking me personally because that seems to be your best option here.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Wolves have a pretty complicated social structure, which bear some resemblance to human social structures, and their structure has lots of survival implications. There is not the least doubt in my mind that if apes did not exist, and never did, evolutionists would swear we descended from wolves, and would find all kinds of reasons, based on the nature of fossil skeletons and tool development, to support it. And that ratlike lemur that has been so celebrated, would be considered the likely ancestor of both.
I do not discount evolution as a possibility. Maybe it’s even a probability, but I’m not sufficintly knowledgeable scientifically, to affirm or deny it. I do think, though, that the whole thing is taken far too seriously, and that utilizing ultra-ancient fossil records to explain all kinds of human social characteristics, is a pretty long jump.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Could you perhaps throw me a banana from your treetop perch?
L
liquidpele
Guest
Are you serious or are you joking?
First off, we did not evolve from apes. No one is saying that.
Second, we **are **primates… the fact that other primates exist or not does not change this… for instance, a good definition of “Primates” would be any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.
We don’t believe this because we want to! And why would we want to? We believe it because we can prove it really is true, and that applies to everyone whether you want to believe it or not. We’re not just saying you’ve descended from a common ancestor as primates either; we’re saying you ARE a primate! Humans have been classified as primates since the 1700s when a Christian creationist scientist figured out what a primate was –and prompted other scientists to figure out why that applied to us.
H
hecd2
Guest
You might want to keep egregiously misrepresenting the science to the ignorant and the gullible, because that seems to be your only option.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Well then your mind must be very easily persuaded, because if apes didn’t exist and never did, then we wouldn’t either, so your scenario is moot. But quite apart from that bit of nonsense, what makes you think that there are reasons in canine anatomy, physiology, genetics or behaviour to suggest that humans are canines?
Fair enough - I respect that.
Well, to the extent that human social characteristics are biological (and of course to some extent they are) it is interesting to see how such characteristics have their roots in our evolutionary history, don’t you think? Aspects of the Ar ramidus anatomy important for behaviour such as bipedality, lack of sexual dimorphism and and the loss of the SCC (ie small canine) are maintained through gracile australopithecines and early Homo to us, so they must have some significant influences on our behaviour. But I agree with you that some speculation by people who should know better is unwarranted and daft, but not necessarily in this case.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
R
reggieM
Guest
It sounds like you’re assuming that I’m not ignorant and gullible – thanks for the compliment!
Let’s now return to the study of evolutionary theory.
NFL Front Four: The early years
Ok, we should get more serious for Alec’s sake and turn to some truly useful science. Someday, evolutionary theory may even become as valuable as this:
Scientists Calculate Maximum Number of Imaginary Universes Possible
Two scientists “have calculated the number of all possible universes” according to this article in physorg.com. An impressive equation enhances the article. The answer is: 10 to the 10 to the 16 universes are out there, even though we’ve never seen them and cannot see them. “If that number sounds large, the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes” otherwise it could be a whopping 10^10^10^7. This completely refutes the idea that it could be to the 10^10^10^8th. This is extremely important for the task of counting imaginary universes – certainly a great benefit to humanity.
Ok, that’s it for me. I’m going to go out and start validating this claim with some empirical evidence. This afternoon I’ll be counting imaginary universes and we’ll see if this article is correct or if they might have missed a universe or two.
B
buffalo
Guest
Are fake universes included? How about one with a God? I am sure there is one with a flying spaghetti monster too.
R
reggieM
Guest
There’s one where the Catholic religion is true also. In that universe there is a God who is God of all possible universes. So, it’s good to see that science proved that God exists.
It also proved here that there is not an infinite number of universes. There’s only 10^10^10^7 of them.
E
edwest2
Guest
That’s a relief. I’m going to have to buy a new heavy-duty Baloney Detection Meter. I can’t afford the money to buy another one, especially after this. You know, I’m glad I decided to pursue a career in fiction writing and not science.
In fact, scientific “explanations” today remind me a great deal of my advanced painting class. On a regular basis, the instructor would sit down with a particular student and have an open dicussion about their work. This involved two chairs, an easel and the student’s latest painting, usually consisting of abstract shapes and markings. I soon determined the discussion was not about the student’s painting ability but their storytelling ability or explanatory power. If they could amuse the instructor by telling him an interesting story about the shapes and markings, they were rewarded with words of praise. If they told a boring and/or rambling story, they would receive words of doubt, with an admonition to find their focus and rethink their work.
Perhaps, one day, my imaginitive abilities will reach the level of scientists. I can only hope.
Peace,
Ed
In fact, scientific “explanations” today remind me a great deal of my advanced painting class. On a regular basis, the instructor would sit down with a particular student and have an open dicussion about their work. This involved two chairs, an easel and the student’s latest painting, usually consisting of abstract shapes and markings. I soon determined the discussion was not about the student’s painting ability but their storytelling ability or explanatory power. If they could amuse the instructor by telling him an interesting story about the shapes and markings, they were rewarded with words of praise. If they told a boring and/or rambling story, they would receive words of doubt, with an admonition to find their focus and rethink their work.
Perhaps, one day, my imaginitive abilities will reach the level of scientists. I can only hope.
Peace,
Ed
L
liquidpele
Guest
My Irony meter just went nuclear…
G
grannymh
Guest
First of all, it may sound like I am joking, but I am actually serious when I refer to my cousin chilly chimp because I do understand you when you say we are both primates. My questioning revolves around the fascinating studies of primate lineages, adaptations, divergence from common ancestors, migration versus multiple origins, etc. etc. It seems that all of us have been in the same boat at sometime or other.
That being so, what accounts for the functional differences between humans and their primate cousins?
Blessings,
granny
All human life, from pre-history to tomorrow, is worthy of profound respect.
L
liquidpele
Guest
Good question! This however is diving into the origins of consciousness and the idea of a soul, so it’s unfortunately a very heated debate if not looked at from a strictly materialist point of view. I hope you don’t think I’m dodging the question, I’m just stating that the answer depends on what philosophy you decide as your basis for truth because research in this area is far less conclusive than digging up fossils and doing DNA comparisons. I will say that science seems to me to be pointing in the direction that consciousness is a physical process.
G
grannymh
Guest
Perhaps from a different set of experiences, I can see the influence of one’s philosophy or philosophies regarding the answer to the question: What accounts for the functional differences between humans and their primate cousins? It’s o.k. with me to look at the question from a materialist point of view. In that case, how is consciousness described by scientists? Would one assume that consciousness is a physical process in all sentient beings? But that brings us back to the question, why the difference between primates? Talk to you later.
L
liquidpele
Guest
From my own research on the subject (which is far from complete) consciousness is not any one light switch. It’s more like a scale that we are simply more along on than Dolphins and other primates, and much further along than dogs and cats. It is in essence the complete chemical brain working in parallel on a massive scale. I think it’s physical for many reasons, the most obvious evidence pointing towards that being that physical things such as alcohol can not only effect us consciously while they are there, but effect us even afterwords with addiction. A few videos I like on the topic that you may find interesting…
Documentary on Child prodigies and our mental development: wimp.com/childsymphonies/
One of the best videos I’ve ever seen on our brain: ted.com/talks/lang/eng/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html
Neurologist talks about her own stoke: ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Ted Dennet on consciousness: ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.html
How we re-wire our brain: ted.com/talks/lang/eng/michael_merzenich_on_the_elastic_brain.html
Watching what’s on your mind: ted.com/talks/lang/eng/christopher_decharms_scans_the_brain_in_real_time.html
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I thought everyone would “get” the joke about wolves, but I guess not.
I will say that in your opening statement above, you assumed your ultimate conclusion in your premise. But never mind that.
I don’t discount evolutionary theory, at least as expressed by some. But I also think it’s sometimes taken too seriously, and assumed to mean more than perhaps it does. This latest fossil skeleton they found, for example, is supposed to prove humans lived in the woods characteristically. Maybe so, maybe not. They really don’t know. Then, they made a leap to conclude that, well, the reason people walk upright is that males of the species somehow became more responsible than apes characteristically are, and had to walk upright in order to carry food home to mate and offspring. Good guys. I saw some show on TV about that and the moderators acted as if they sweated and strained and had that Eureka moment and came up with that explanation as the only possible one. Aha! Improved socialization! That explains about everything we need to know about human nature, and the ramifications exude endlessly from it!
Of course, walking upright also makes it easier to carry weapons. Bad guys. But it seems never to have occurred to the moderators that weapon-carrying is as easy an explanation as food-carrying. And, of course, all kinds of animals carry food to their dens without walking upright. Carrying almost any kind of weapon requires ones hands to be free and at the ready.
Of course, they didn’t ask me.
- Status