AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

We are not great apes:-"The implications of splitting humans from great apes taxonomically would be beneficial. Conceptually it would allow researchers to better understand the hominid/ape divergence and the key differences between humans and great apes today. But perhaps more importantly, splitting humans from the great apes allows us to reconceptualize our own humanity. We are not the great apes; we are humans. The great apes are our closest extant relatives, and it is incredibly important to study, protect, and conserve them. However, we can't use their title as closest extant relatives as a strategic rhetorical device to emphasize similarity."-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/02/13/the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130213-Our bodies are related, our brains are not. We have imagination, they do not. Adler made the point almost 60 years ago.

1726 views

DAVID: We are not great apes:-"The implications of splitting humans from great apes taxonomically would be beneficial. Conceptually it would allow researchers to better understand the hominid/ape divergence and the key differences between humans and great apes today. But perhaps more importantly, splitting humans from the great apes allows us to reconceptualize our own humanity. We are not the great apes; we are humans. The great apes are our closest extant relatives, and it is incredibly important to study, protect, and conserve them. However, we can't use their title as closest extant relatives as a strategic rhetorical device to emphasize similarity."-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/02/13/the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate...-Our bodies are related, our brains are not. We have imagination, they do not. Adler made the point almost 60 years ago.-I must confess I find this debate pretty pointless. No, we are not apes, we are humans. This is the name we have given to our species ... and all "species" are the names humans give to them, though we can't even agree on what we mean by "species". Gorillas are not chimpanzees are not orang-utans are not elephants are not sharks. We humans identify classes, orders, families, genera, species by pinpointing distinctions, and then we argue about how distinct the distinctions are, and whether the borderlines we have created are correct. This is a dispute about language, not about the realities language tries to capture.-There is, of course, a two-way agenda behind this particular rhetorical-cum-taxonomical device, which arises from the suggestion that humans have been singled out and may even be the goal of a God-directed evolution. I'm sure we would all agree that humans are special because of their extraordinary brains, just as some dogs are special because of their extraordinary sense of smell, and some birds are special because of their extraordinary navigational abilities. And I'm sure we would all agree that the human brain has enabled us to achieve feats way beyond the powers of any other living creature. And I think most of us would agree that humans and the great apes have common ancestors. So let's just agree that humans are humans, and have special powers. Whether you call them great apes or not doesn't alter those powers, and so shouldn't make the slightest difference to the question of whether they are God's chosen "species" or simply another step in the impersonal process of evolution. So what is the point of the debate?

1711 views


> dhw: So let's just agree that humans are humans, and have special powers. Whether you call them great apes or not doesn't alter those powers, and so shouldn't make the slightest difference to the question of whether they are God's chosen "species" or simply another step in the impersonal process of evolution. So what is the point of the debate?-It is a matter of emphasis. If humans are primates it infers that they are nothing really special. On the other hand, if they are a very special species, even if they have a common ancestor with the primates, this implies that they were teleologically chosen to appear. Are we 'Naked Apes' as the book implies or are we so different it makes a major difference in the philosophy of our origins? God at work. -I have covered this important point in my new book.

1709 views

dhw: So let's just agree that humans are humans, and have special powers. Whether you call them great apes or not doesn't alter those powers, and so shouldn't make the slightest difference to the question of whether they are God's chosen "species" or simply another step in the impersonal process of evolution. So what is the point of the debate?-DAVID: It is a matter of emphasis. If humans are primates it infers that they are nothing really special.-Humans are apes if humans say they are apes. If humans say they are not apes, they are not apes. The classification is a human artifact. And if humans disagree on their definition of their own terminology, the debate becomes one of language only. (As regards "special", see below.)
 
DAVID: On the other hand, if they are a very special species, even if they have a common ancestor with the primates, this implies that they were teleologically chosen to appear.-They can be primates and still be a very special species, and even an atheist could agree that humans have special gifts that apes don't have, but he still wouldn't have to agree that they were teleologically "chosen" (see the next set of comments). As a matter of interest, what is your definition of a primate?-DAVID: Are we 'Naked Apes' as the book implies or are we so different it makes a major difference in the philosophy of our origins? God at work. I have covered this important point in my new book.-And no doubt you have emphasized, with consummate skill, all the attributes that distinguish humans from their simian ancestors, and because these attributes are so complex and give us incalculable advantages, you have concluded that God is at work. An atheist can agree with everything you say about man's attributes, and argue that it's just one more example of evolution refining organs (in our case especially the brain, in other animals sight, smell, hearing...). An atheist is not going to say, "I classify us as apes, and therefore we don't have these attributes." And you're not going to say, "If we classified ourselves as apes, we wouldn't have these attributes." The classification is irrelevant, except that some humans think it's an insult to their intelligence. What matters is the subjective value we attach to the similarities and differences, and the subjective interpretation we put on them.

1697 views

dhw: The classification is irrelevant, except that some humans think it's an insult to their intelligence. What matters is the subjective value we attach to the similarities and differences, and the subjective interpretation we put on them.-Exactly. I am insisting that the subjective interpretations that come from insisting we are primates first and humans secondly, degrades the impression of our human-ness and makes us seem less special. We are very special. There is no evolutionary theory that demands our appearance on Earth. The primates from whom we descended are still travelling along happily unchanged, unevolved beyond their ancient and also current state. For a very unexplained reason our line took off and evolved well beyond what was required for survival. Why was that? Even you will not accept chance. What other choice is there but a driven directionality. What or who drove it?

1691 views

dhw: The classification is irrelevant, except that some humans think it's an insult to their intelligence. What matters is the subjective value we attach to the similarities and differences, and the subjective interpretation we put on them.-Exactly. I am insisting that the subjective interpretations that come from insisting we are primates first and humans secondly, degrades the impression of our human-ness and makes us seem less special. We are very special. -"Degrades...seem less special..." in whose eyes? If we are special because of our huge brains and the astonishing feats we accomplish with them, do these huge brains and astonishing feats seem less special to YOU when Mr X says we are primates? And if Mr X doesn't think we are "very special", will he change his mind because you tell him he's human and not a primate? You can make out a subjective case for us being very special even though we're primates, and he can make out a subjective case for our not being very special even though we're humans. I don't think these subjective interpretations will be changed by wrangling over terminology. And I'd still like to know your definition of "primate", so that I can understand why you think it's degrading.-DAVID: There is no evolutionary theory that demands our appearance on Earth. The primates from whom we descended are still travelling along happily unchanged, unevolved beyond their ancient and also current state. -I agree. And what is the evolutionary theory that DEMANDS the appearance of dinosaurs and dodos? All we know is that they happened. What is the evolutionary theory that DEMANDS any form of life beyond bacteria, which have travelled along happily since the earliest days, and will almost certainly survive us? If demand is the criterion, then every multicellular organism is special. However, I do agree that our brains have enabled us to achieve feats far beyond the reach of any of our fellow animals (a term which incidentally I do not use derogatorily, and which I do not consider to be in any way a degradation of my human-ness or my special-ness). But that is a long way from saying that we are the goal of evolution (see below).
 
DAVID: For a very unexplained reason our line took off and evolved well beyond what was required for survival. Why was that? Even you will not accept chance. What other choice is there but a driven directionality. What or who drove it?-I will not accept chance as the force that inexplicably put together the mechanisms for life and evolution, any more than I will accept an equally inexplicable, self-made, self-aware, eternal maker of universes and evolutionary mechanisms. But once those mechanisms were in place, busily combining, adapting and innovating, I have no more reason to believe in directionality than I have to believe in randomness. As I have said repeatedly, the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution itself does not seem to me to denote a single goal, and so I find your divine teleology no more (and no less) believable than the view that the mechanisms simply followed their own random course, or they were imbued with an inventive "intelligence" of their own, or a possible designer fiddled around with his building blocks to see what he could come up with.

1698 views


> dhw: I will not accept chance as the force that inexplicably put together the mechanisms for life and evolution, any more than I will accept an equally inexplicable, self-made, self-aware, eternal maker of universes and evolutionary mechanisms. But once those mechanisms were in place, busily combining, adapting and innovating, I have no more reason to believe in directionality than I have to believe in randomness. As I have said repeatedly, the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution itself does not seem to me to denote a single goal, and so I find your divine teleology no more (and no less) believable than the view that the mechanisms simply followed their own random course, or they were imbued with an inventive "intelligence" of their own, or a possible designer fiddled around with his building blocks to see what he could come up with.-My bold. Who did the imbuing? Chance? Please explain imbued

1697 views

dhw: I will not accept chance as the force that inexplicably put together the mechanisms for life and evolution, any more than I will accept an equally inexplicable, self-made, self-aware, eternal maker of universes and evolutionary mechanisms. But once those mechanisms were in place, busily combining, adapting and innovating, I have no more reason to believe in directionality than I have to believe in randomness. As I have said repeatedly, the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution itself does not seem to me to denote a single goal, and so I find your divine teleology no more (and no less) believable than the view that the mechanisms simply followed their own random course, or they were imbued with an inventive "intelligence" of their own, or a possible designer fiddled around with his building blocks to see what he could come up with.-DAVID: My bold. Who did the imbuing? Chance? Please explain imbued.-Permeated, inspired, filled...in the same way as I might say your writings are imbued/filled with a sense of divine purpose. It doesn't mean that God comes along and does your writing for you. (My writings are imbued with a sense of my own ignorance, so who does the writing?) However, I will answer your question in the only way I can: I do not know where this intelligence came from. I do not believe in chance, and I do not believe in a self-made, self-aware, eternal, inside-and-outside-the-universe designer.
 
In the meantime, perhaps you have forgotten that the trigger for this discussion was "the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate", the point of which escapes me. So let me ask you once more how you define "primate", why you think the term degrades us, and why you think people who are sceptical of your "very special", divine teleology would be converted to your opinions if only you could make them refer to us as humans and not as primates.

1749 views

dhw: In the meantime, perhaps you have forgotten that the trigger for this discussion was "the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate", the point of which escapes me. So let me ask you once more how you define "primate", why you think the term degrades us, and why you think people who are sceptical of your "very special", divine teleology would be converted to your opinions if only you could make them refer to us as humans and not as primates.-We may have descended from primate ancestors, but we are so special that we are very different in kind. To insist on still considering us primates tries to avoid the question of why we are so special and how we got that way. Accepting the specialness strongly implies teleology. The skeptical wish to deny the role of God and will not be won over, because they will want absolute proof,which is impossible. For the rest of us the inference from the 'specialness' is overwhelming.

1754 views

dhw: In the meantime, perhaps you have forgotten that the trigger for this discussion was "the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate", the point of which escapes me. So let me ask you once more how you define "primate", why you think the term degrades us, and why you think people who are sceptical of your "very special", divine teleology would be converted to your opinions if only you could make them refer to us as humans and not as primates.-This reference to the mistakes in our primate-modified design makes my point. We are just mis-engineered primates, and unfortunate at that. This is a constant theme of the atheistic scientific deluge that laughs at a God-designed human as a hugh mistake. Therefore no god!:-
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/human-evolution-gain-came-with-p.html?ref=hp

1770 views

dhw: In the meantime, perhaps you have forgotten that the trigger for this discussion was "the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate", the point of which escapes me. So let me ask you once more how you define "primate", why you think the term degrades us, and why you think people who are sceptical of your "very special", divine teleology would be converted to your opinions if only you could make them refer to us as humans and not as primates.-DAVID: We may have descended from primate ancestors, but we are so special that we are very different in kind. To insist on still considering us primates tries to avoid the question of why we are so special and how we got that way. Accepting the specialness strongly implies teleology. The skeptical wish to deny the role of God and will not be won over, because they will want absolute proof, which is impossible. For the rest of us the inference from the 'specialness' is overwhelming.-Classifications are man-made. Here is a definition of primate: "a placental mammal, typically having flexible hands and feet with opposable first digits, good binocular vision, and in the higher apes a highly developed brain." Is there anything in this definition that does not apply to humans?-My own view is that the human brain is so highly developed that it means we are very special. Camels are artiodactyl mammals with a number of unique features: their red blood cells, nostrils, hump, immune system, eyelids etc. all differ from those of other mammals, so they too are very special. Does that mean they should not be classified as artiodactyl mammals? The classification does not in any way degrade their specialness, but if you think that calling man a very special primate is degrading, of course that is your prerogative. Perhaps we should also stop calling ourselves mammals.-If by teleology you mean purposefulness, I agree that evolution is purpose-driven, and the purpose is survival. This still applies to man, though his huge brain has taken him far beyond that primary purpose, which indeed makes him very special. But if by teleology you mean divine purposefulness, either this applies to ALL creatures with special features (camels, dogs, spiders etc.) or to none. In other words, if your God-made "intelligent cells" were able to invent the camel's immune system, the dog's nose, the spider's silk, then they were able to invent the human brain, ALL of these being part of the innovative process of evolution. Or are you now arguing that humans did not evolve like the rest of the animal kingdom?-In no way, however, would I wish to oppose your case AGAINST chance as the inventor of the initial mechanisms for life and evolution. But you have always admitted that the case FOR an unseen, unknowable, eternally self-aware planner rests on faith, in exactly the same way as the atheist has to have faith in inventive chance (though he might cloak it in different terms). And so the atheist can repeat your own argument against you: "The skeptical wish to deny the role of chance and will not be won over, because they will want absolute proof, which is impossible." We are back to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.-*********-DAVID: This reference to the mistakes in our primate-modified design makes my point. We are just mis-engineered primates, and unfortunate at that. This is a constant theme of the atheistic scientific deluge that laughs at a God-designed human as a huge mistake. Therefore no god!-http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/human-evolution-gain-came-with-p.html?ref=hp-It has nothing to do with our classification as primates, though it seems to me just as pointless as the great-apes-taxonomy-debate. This is an attack on the whole concept of design, and obviously by implication on the concept of a designer, and the word 'primate' is used twice, in totally neutral contexts. 
 
Let me put on my theist hat. Since none of us have a clue how to design a self-reproducing, self-repairing, fully conscious machine of any species, how can we know what designs are possible? On a finite Earth, if a creator god wanted variety, his creatures obviously had to die, which meant things had to go wrong. And do the flaws in our bodies prove that chance assembled the mechanisms for evolution? Of course they don't.
 
However, note the conclusion of this article:-The point of citing all these problems? Evolution doesn't "design" anything, says anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Boston University, a discussant on the panel. It works slowly on the genes and traits it has at hand, to jerry-rig animals' and humans body plans to changing habitats and demands. "Evolution doesn't act to yield perfection," he says. "It acts to yield function."-
I'd go along with that. It fits in with the higgledy-piggledy bush, and the observations themselves seem to me to be accurate enough. Would anyone deny that the human body has weaknesses? But that doesn't prove there's no designer, any more than the conking out of my old VW proves that it was assembled by chance. If there is a designer, it's perfectly possible that he designed life to "yield function" and not "perfection". So I would echo the first sentence of the conclusion: "The point of citing all these problems?" Search me.

1755 views


> Classifications are man-made. Here is a definition of primate: "a placental mammal, typically having flexible hands and feet with opposable first digits, good binocular vision, and in the higher apes a highly developed brain." Is there anything in this definition that does not apply to humans?-No, but it proves nothing. it is a classification, not a truth. however, the classfication is used to remove an concept of specialness in regard to humans. We startd as primates but for some unknown reason we became upright physically and extremely brainy, when evolutionary pressures did not require those changes.-
> dhw: The classification does not in any way degrade their [camel] specialness, but if you think that calling man a very special primate is degrading, of course that is your prerogative. Perhaps we should also stop calling ourselves mammals.-Arguments all off the point. Of course camels are special in their own way. All the disparate species have their own specialness.Try injecting 8 mgms a day of selenium as llamas do, and then die. These are variations all species have. but only one species has a giant brain.
> 
> dhw: if your God-made "intelligent cells" were able to invent the camel's immune system, the dog's nose, the spider's silk, then they were able to invent the human brain, ALL of these being part of the innovative process of evolution. Or are you now arguing that humans did not evolve like the rest of the animal kingdom?-We evolved, but I think I know where the information came from in those intelligent cells, really their intelligent genome. Information cannot come from chance. The information to run the processes of life must come from a designing intellect.
> 
> dhw:And so the atheist can repeat your own argument against you: "The skeptical wish to deny the role of chance and will not be won over, because they will want absolute proof, which is impossible." We are back to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.-Making a choice between chance and God is a personal choice. If one is willing to accept proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then God wins. Absolute proof will never bring an answer, so I assume those skeptics prefer to remain in darkness.
> 
> *********
> 
> DAVID: This reference to the mistakes in our primate-modified design makes my point. We are just mis-engineered primates, and unfortunate at that. This is a constant theme of the atheistic scientific deluge that laughs at a God-designed human as a huge mistake. Therefore no god!
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/human-evolution-gain-came-with-p.html?ref... 
> dhw: It has nothing to do with our classification as primates..... This is an attack on the whole concept of design, and obviously by implication on the concept of a designer-That was my point. - 
> dhw: However, note the conclusion of this article: "Evolution doesn't act to yield perfection," he says. "It acts to yield function."[/i]
 
 
> I'd go along with that. It fits in with the higgledy-piggledy bush, and the observations themselves seem to me to be accurate enough. Would anyone deny that the human body has weaknesses? But that doesn't prove there's no designer, If there is a designer, it's perfectly possible that he designed life to "yield function" and not "perfection". -Exactly. Life is not perfect design, it is functional design; the exact point of the Intelligent Design theorists. Again to use an old horse, the retina: it sees upside down and backwards, but it all sees one photon with an extremely powerfully efficient use of energy. All primates have it, but only one has that huge brain.

1771 views

I am going to summarize this discussion, because arrows are flying in all directions.-It began with my questioning the point of the great-ape-taxonomy-debate. David, you think that classifying humans as primates degrades their specialness. I agree that our huge brains are special, but I see no reason why the classification "primate" should be regarded as degrading. -We agree that all species have their own specialness, but as only one species (us) has a giant brain, we are specially special, and that is why we are degraded by being classified as part of a particular order ("primates"). I still think it's a non-issue.-You believe that the huge human brain is evidence of teleology (God's particular purpose). We agree that the human brain evolved in the same way as the special features of other species. I made this point in order to stress that if our brain is evidence of teleology, then the special features of other species must also be part of your God's purpose. Your response is that information has to come from a designing intellect.-You argued that non-believers want absolute proof, which is impossible. I pointed out that you would want a non-believer to provide absolute proof that chance created life. You respond that if one accepts "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", then God "wins". I regard my own doubts as reasonable, but then I would, wouldn't I?-We are in agreement on the pointlessness of the anti-design conference.-I hope this is a fair summary.

1739 views

dhw: I am going to summarize this discussion, because arrows are flying in all directions..... It began with my questioning the point of the great-ape-taxonomy-debate. David, you think that classifying humans as primates degrades their specialness. I agree that our huge brains are special, but I see no reason why the classification "primate" should be regarded as degrading. -Your lack of seeing my point is why the discussion kept going. The key to my objection about clasifying us as primates, is that atheists constantly use the classification to imply we are not so special. We are just naked apes as the book said. But our posture is different, our skeleton is different, our gait is different, our hands are different (opposible thumbs) and our brain is enormously different. We are beyond primate although we came from there.

1745 views

DAVID: The key to my objection about classifying us as primates, is that atheists constantly use the classification to imply we are not so special. We are just naked apes as the book said. But our posture is different, our skeleton is different, our gait is different, our hands are different (opposible thumbs) and our brain is enormously different. We are beyond primate although we came from there.-I have no problem seeing the differences, and I have no problem seeing the similarities. My point is that atheists will continue to emphasize the latter, and you will continue to emphasize the former, no matter what we call ourselves. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
 
I'd like to take the discussion into a different context, which you will perhaps look on more sympathetically. I constantly refer to humans and their "fellow animals", which may also sound degrading, but there is no atheist agenda behind my terminology. In my view, it's important not to lose sight of our common ground with our fellow animals. They're sentient beings even if we may assume they're far less intelligent and self-aware than we are, and they suffer both physically and mentally as we do. Our basic needs ... food, shelter, nurture, security, propagation of the species etc. ... are identical, and most of our human activities are dedicated to precisely these aims, even though we've institutionalized them to such a sophisticated degree that we've lost sight of their and our animal origins.-Why is this important? Firstly, because the way we treat our fellow animals is often appalling. In 2011, a single UK animal charity investigated 159,759 cases of cruelty, and rescued 119,126 animals. The intellectual justification for this is often that animals are different from us, inferior to us, don't feel things as we do. Secondly, it's important because humans use exactly the same reasoning to justify their cruelty to their fellow humans: whites enslaving blacks, Aryans slaughtering Jews...And this way of thinking still features in most human conflicts. "Oh, those people are just animals." In the context of respect for all living creatures, we need to emphasize our similarities rather than our differences. At first sight, this may seem to have nothing to do with the great-ape-taxonomy-debate, but it's actually the reverse side of our earlier discussion. In the philosophical/religious context of the specialness of humans, you find the link with other animals degrading. In the context of ethics, the specialness of humans (often extended to the specialness of SOME humans) has been and continues to be distorted to such a degree that it lies at the very heart of our most degradingly "inhuman" activities. But just as I do not believe for one minute that atheists would change their mindset if we stopped calling humans "primates", I do not believe for one minute that calling humans "fellow animals" will change the mindset of those who abuse their fellow animals as well as their fellow humans!

1738 views

dhw: But just as I do not believe for one minute that atheists would change their mindset if we stopped calling humans "primates", I do not believe for one minute that calling humans "fellow animals" will change the mindset of those who abuse their fellow animals as well as their fellow humans!-As a human lover and an animal lover I agree with your presentation. Cruelty is wrond at any level, and in Genesis God gave us dominion over animals to do our best to care for them and protect them. Our African trips have all been with cameras in hand.

1736 views

Language, which only we have, makes us human. Brain controls discovered:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23198-conductor-of-speech-uncovered-in-the-brain.html-http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-02-secrets-human-speech-uncovered-brain.html

1759 views

Comparing infant language learning to chimp learning finds a large difference. the infant uses grammar, the chimp does not:-
"Yang also studied language diversity in Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who knows American Sign Language. Nim's word combinations are much less diverse than would be expected if he were combining words independently. This indicates that he is probably mimicking, rather than using grammar. This difference in language use indicates that human children do not acquire language in the same way that non-human primates do. Young children learn rules of grammar very quickly, while a chimpanzee who has spent many years learning language continues to imitate rather than combine words based on grammatical rules."- Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04-humans-apes-language-differently.html#jCp

1701 views

DAVID: Comparing infant language learning to chimp learning finds a large difference. the infant uses grammar, the chimp does not:
"Yang also studied language diversity in Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who knows American Sign Language. Nim's word combinations are much less diverse than would be expected if he were combining words independently. This indicates that he is probably mimicking, rather than using grammar. This difference in language use indicates that human children do not acquire language in the same way that non-human primates do. Young children learn rules of grammar very quickly, while a chimpanzee who has spent many years learning language continues to imitate rather than combine words based on grammatical rules."-Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-04-humans-apes-language-differently.html#jCp-The following is an extract translated from a treatise by Professor Pansy Chim, University of Human Studies, Tanzania:-"The first problem I encountered with the adult specimens was their extreme reluctance not only to learn our language, but even to recognize that it WAS a language. When I attempted to teach them the rudimentary skills of vocalization, facial expression and physical gesture, they seemed unable to differentiate between our sounds and movements, and on the few occasions when they imitated these, they quickly collapsed into paroxysms of laughter. As far as I can tell, their own language is so complex that very few of them have ever mastered it, and their conversations are frequently punctuated by expressions of non-comprehension. Their younger children, however, seemed more cooperative, which suggests the unusual possibility that the children are more intelligent than the adults. This may, however, be due to the phenomenon known as "interference", whereby the more the learner knows (or thinks he knows), the less capable he is of learning. I have noted this elsewhere, when discussing their adults' opinions and beliefs.-My conclusion is that very few humans are capable of learning our language. This may be due to lack of intelligence, or it may be due to the fact that they are unwilling to recognize themselves as part of the animal kingdom. (See also the chapters on sex, family life, social life, education, tools, empathy, emotion, humour, hunting, games, war and peace.)"

1677 views


> dhw: The following is an extract translated from a treatise by Professor Pansy Chim, University of Human Studies, Tanzania:
> 
> "The first problem I encountered with the adult specimens was their extreme reluctance not only to learn our language, but even to recognize that it WAS a language. When I attempted to teach them the rudimentary skills of vocalization, facial expression and physical gesture, they seemed unable to differentiate between our sounds and movements, and on the few occasions when they imitated these, they quickly collapsed into paroxysms of laughter. As far as I can tell, their own language is so complex that very few of them have ever mastered it, and their conversations are frequently punctuated by expressions of non-comprehension. Their younger children, however, seemed more cooperative, which suggests the unusual possibility that the children are more intelligent than the adults. This may, however, be due to the phenomenon known as "interference", whereby the more the learner knows (or thinks he knows), the less capable he is of learning. I have noted this elsewhere, when discussing their adults' opinions and beliefs.
> 
> My conclusion is that very few humans are capable of learning our language. This may be due to lack of intelligence, or it may be due to the fact that they are unwilling to recognize themselves as part of the animal kingdom. (See also the chapters on sex, family life, social life, education, tools, empathy, emotion, humour, hunting, games, war and peace.)"-Nicely done!-Chimps have some rudiments of thought:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130403141442.htm

1708 views

Only humans and human ancestors walked upright. Apes can only do it briefly:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130725125447.htm

1667 views

The fossil record is very sparce. We really don't have a direct line record of how H. sapiens arrived from the past:-http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/has-science-shown-that-we-evolved-from-ape-like-creatures.php

1667 views

DAVID: The fossil record is very sparce. We really don't have a direct line record of how H. sapiens arrived from the past:-http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/has-science-shown-that-we-evolve...-QUOTE: "Despite the constant drumbeat of media stories announcing the discovery of the latest "missing link," the evidence shows that human-like forms appear abruptly in the fossil record, without any fossils connecting us to our alleged ape-like evolutionary ancestors. This contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution and suggests that unguided evolutionary mechanisms do not account for the origin of our species."-Is this any different from the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion? When and how did specialized organs appear from nowhere? When and how did one species become another? All we have to go on are the similarities between older and younger species, plus the fact that we do not know of any form of life that does not descend from a preceding form of life. We do not understand the mechanism that accounts for the origin of ANY species, but if that mechanism was guided, then so was the mechanism that produced the eagle, the elephant, the ant and the duck-billed platypus. Some folk believe it all happened by chance, some folk believe their God made every species separately, some folk believe their God preprogrammed zillions of innovations into the very first organisms, some folk believe "intelligent cells" worked out their own designs, and some of us don't know what to believe.

1645 views


> QUOTE: "Despite the constant drumbeat of media stories announcing the discovery of the latest "missing link," the evidence shows that human-like forms appear abruptly in the fossil record, without any fossils connecting us to our alleged ape-like evolutionary ancestors. This contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution and suggests that unguided evolutionary mechanisms do not account for the origin of our species."
> 
> dhw: Is this any different from the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion? When and how did specialized organs appear from nowhere? When and how did one species become another? .... some of us don't know what to believe.-I agree. The gaps are not explained at this time by science or by evolutionary theory. Again I look for inferences to the best explanation/

1647 views

dhw: Is this any different from the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion? When and how did specialized organs appear from nowhere? When and how did one species become another? .... some of us don't know what to believe.-DAVID: I agree. The gaps are not explained at this time by science or by evolutionary theory. Again I look for inferences to the best explanation/-So, of course, do those whose "best explanation" differs from your "best explanation".

1645 views

dhw: Is this any different from the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion? When and how did specialized organs appear from nowhere? When and how did one species become another? .... some of us don't know what to believe.
> 
> DAVID: I agree. The gaps are not explained at this time by science or by evolutionary theory. Again I look for inferences to the best explanation/
> 
> dhw: So, of course, do those whose "best explanation" differs from your "best explanation".-But agnostics suggest no explanation

1638 views

dhw: Is this any different from the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion? When and how did specialized organs appear from nowhere? When and how did one species become another? .... some of us don't know what to believe. -DAVID: I agree. The gaps are not explained at this time by science or by evolutionary theory. Again I look for inferences to the best explanation/
 
dhw: So, of course, do those whose "best explanation" differs from your "best explanation".-DAVID: But agnostics suggest no explanation.-Blessed are the peacemakers, even if they may not be called the children of God.

1659 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum