# "Are we just another primate?"



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thinking that @mhammer (especially) would enjoy this when I was watching it.

Warning: ~30 minutes in length


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Sapolsky's an interesting guy. You made me pop down to the basement and pull out his book "A Primate's Memoir" of the shelf. I'll give the video a peek when the Ti-Cats/Redblacks game goes to half-time. When I was an undergrad, Donald Hebb indicated that he felt clinical psychologists should be obliged to work with chimps for a while first, because they had all of the smarts but none of the cooperation one might expect with people. He thought that was good training.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

That was definitely well worth the time. Thanks.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I have to say, he talks exactly how he writes. But it's hard to stop myself from thinking how much he reminds me of Zach Galifanakis.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

mhammer said:


> work with chimps for a while first, because they had all of the smarts but none of the cooperation one might expect with people


 Oh , you mean management .


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Finished watching. He occasionally forgets his Morgan's Canon and treads a little too close to anthropomorphism. But then, when you spend a lot of time with animals, and watch them closely, with an open mind, they can show you things that, in theory, ought not to happen with them. The Sapolsky book I mentioned, recounts his extensive time studying a troop of baboons in Kenya, recounts many times when he has no other way of explaining or depicting incidents he witnessed other than in human-like terms. I've personally witnessed a female chimp pulling a fast one on a rather bossy male who was being a bit of an entitled prick, and having a good old laugh having done so, while the male took a shit-fit and threw rocks at bystanders. Sometimes even the most ardent behaviourists have to call it like they see it.

But he's an engaging writer. You should try out one of his books.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Seems chimps do co-operate. Far more than just picking lice off each other.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2019)

I always find it fascinating that film crews don't get discovered or attacked in scenes like that.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What they witness from a safe distance, and what gets edited to _depict_ what they witnessed, may be two different things. It's a bit like those various cooking competition shows where someone is saying "Ten more minutes!" amidst all the chaos, and somehow miraculously, ten minutes later, there's finished plated dishes, and the countertops are spotlessly clean. It's not like all the footage after the announcement of diminishing time comes directly from those last 10 minutes. They're not "lying", as such, but they are compiling footage to heighten the drama.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

mhammer said:


> What they witness from a safe distance, and what gets edited to _depict_ what they witnessed, may be two different things.


Was it a CBC film crew?


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Do not know the guy, never heard his name, did not read his book and did not even listened to the video because I strongly believe the answer to the question is nearby a strong yes every time I take a walk on a street... and it is a shame !


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> Was it a CBC film crew?


BBC. 
These are "Dwarf" chimps.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As far as I know, bonobos are a separate species; not gorillas, not chimps, not orangutans, but a different great ape.

Reading Sapolsky's book, he was a young impressionable kid from New York, who went out to Kenya in his early 20s, during the late 1970s, to study baboons. What he encountered in both the urban and rural life of east Africa was so foreign to him that, much like Claude Levi-Strauss's declaration that a good anthropologist needs to be an "outsider", he couldn't help but find parallels between the foreign behaviour of those around him and the behaviour of another species. I just finished the chapter where he took a break from baboon stuff, hitched a rather precarious ride to Kampala, Uganda, in time for the fall of the Idi Amin dictatorship and the rioting that followed. Such things foster a certain distance from the "normal" behaviour of humans that one is accustomed to.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> As far as I know, bonobos are a separate species; not gorillas, not chimps, not orangutans, but a different great ape.


Different species but same genus. One is a tool user and one isn't. One makes war and the other doesn't. Both primates, same as us.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just know that "primates" includes an awful lot that is very different from great apes, including these little cuties.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Just know that "primates" includes an awful lot that is very different from great apes, including these little cuties.


Yup. along with the guys with the long middle fingers I think.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

conceptually, he didn't say anything i didn't already know. however, in answer to the question are we "just another primaye?"
what does that even mean? big deal, chimps don't understand shakespeare or conga lines. they also don't understand credit cards, the hubble telescope, gmo wheat, or louis jordan. our dna may be less than 1% different, but that difference is so huge as to be nearly beyond measure. alot of people spend alot of time and energy trying to convince us that we're just another meat machine.
but as far as we know, no other meat machine has ever done some of the awesome stuff we have. so until you have monkeys naking plastics, fuck off, we're not just another primate.
we are unique, we are superior,


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Agree. Your DNA will stretch to the sun and back 61 times, making 1% a huge difference. Scientists, like guitarists, often assign too much significance to their work.

A Long and Winding DNA

EDIT: Hey cheezy look! I included a citation!! Lol.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

KapnKrunch said:


> Agree. Your DNA will stretch to the sun and back 61 times, making 1% a huge difference. Scientists, like guitarists, often assign too much significance to their work.
> 
> A Long and Winding DNA
> 
> EDIT: Hey cheezy look! I included a citation!! Lol.


The author fudges some things to make his numbers more dramatic.

But Cheezy asks "what does that even mean?", with respect to the rhetorical question "are we just another primate?". Sapolsky asks the question and dissects it further. "Just another" implies some degree of similarity. He wonders just _what_ degree of similarity, and poses a number of ways in which we could be more similar than we think, but still possibly dissimilar. It's also useful to remember he's talking to the room in front of him, and that audience are attending a talk put on by the Science & Nonduality organization, which I gather is one of those new-age-ey-science-and-spirituality things you need to live in certain parts of California to wrap your head around. I'm not bashing them, just noting that it probably requires a certain approach to life, and be surrounded by a certain sort of community, to find such an organization a "necessary" initiative. He's not presenting to the Society for Neuroscience, or American Association for the Advancement of Science, or American Psychological Association. Seeing how he writes, I have little doubt he'd throw in any fewer jokes if he were, but recognize that the points he is trying to make are those he feels that audience would deem of value.

There are many aspects of human behaviour that we traditionally felt were completely dissimilar to anything found in all other species that, as time went on and we spent some of it looking closely at other species, we discovered could also be found in ways we hadn't noticed previously. Tool use, and intra-species aggression were the easy ones to find, but other things have cropped up as well. I've had an interest in what is referred to as "theory of mind" for a while. For a long time, a) we hadn't really conceptualized what this actually meant for humans and how it emerged, such that b) we couldn't really see any vestiges of it in other species. "Theory of mind" is a form of self-awareness, relating to the knowledge that we have thoughts, mental faculties, beliefs, and that others have them too. The so-called "rouge studies", in which the researcher surreptitiously puts some red makeup on a child's nose, and examines whether the child will recognize that they do not look as they expect when they pass by a mirror has been replicated in some other species, particularly great apes. But knowing sort of what you look like is a rather shallow level of self-awareness, compared to knowing that you have beliefs, that others have them, that you could both be mistaken, or that people have memories and some things are hard to remember. It's near impossible to directly assess what chimps know of their _own_ minds, but they have been observed attempting to create false beliefs in others, in order to take advantage of another chimp (è.g., making `Hey, what`s that thing over there?" gestures, and swiping a food reward when the other chimp turns to look). So we have indirect evidence that they have some rudimentary assumptions about others' thinking. It may not be as fully-fledged as what we see in a 7 year-old human, but neither is it a zillion miles away in its complexity.

In the book of his I'm reading now, he has some funny descriptions of female baboons trying their damnedest to get laid, but having a hard time getting those low-status males they're coming on to interested. He also describes how the alpha male baboons will staunchly defend the infants in the troop when they are attacked by a rival troop, but generally only if the infants are known to be their own offspring. If it's some lesser-status baboon's kids, the alpha will stand around watching like it's a movie or something. Some acquaintances of my wife and I spent their careers studying domestic homicide, and found that risk of infanticide was much greater if the murdering adult was a step-parent, rather than biological parent. Our responses, and responsibilities towards, those related by blood, are different, and such distinctions are also seen in many other higher primates.

So there are many ways we behave similarly to our hairier relatives that we had not previously considered. That doesn't make us better, or lesser. But it does provide some guidance in the nature of our behaviour and what influences it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

cheezyridr said:


> conceptually, he didn't say anything i didn't already know. however, in answer to the question are we "just another primaye?"
> what does that even mean? big deal, chimps don't understand shakespeare or conga lines. they also don't understand credit cards, the hubble telescope, gmo wheat, or louis jordan. our dna may be less than 1% different, but that difference is so huge as to be nearly beyond measure. alot of people spend alot of time and energy trying to convince us that we're just another meat machine.
> but as far as we know, no other meat machine has ever done some of the awesome stuff we have. so until you have monkeys naking plastics, fuck off, we're not just another primate.
> we are unique, we are superior,


Some could probably come up with proof that there are a lot of 'humans' that don't understand everything you said that chimps don't understand. We are unique, we are superior.....not too sure about that. There's 6+ billion of us stumbling around which makes us kinda commonplace. Superior? To what? Are we a food source? Yup and in a face to face all things being equal battle a chimp will tear us apart every time. So could a lot of the other primates. 
@KapnKrunch......you gotta figure that chimps and other great apes have about the same amount of DNA so that would make the 1% a pretty small difference don't you think.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Electraglide said:


> ...you gotta figure that chimps and other great apes have about the same amount of DNA so that would make the 1% a pretty small difference don't you think.


Good point.

But I wonder what part of my DNA will forever reject being compared to another primate. Its more appropriate comparing primates to us. The presupposition of this whole discussion is evolution of species. Any proof that other primate DNA can be converted to human DNA? Or has been? 

I mean to say, of course their behaviour would explain ours IF this was true. If not, scrap the whole approach.

Real results please and no speculative double talk.

Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

apes VS humans ... less than 1% difference .... take a trillion ( or more) , knock off 2 zeros and you still have a huge difference.

sibling to sibling even less , yet we have a "genius" and the "village idiot" ( no kicks at special needs here ) come from the same family gene pool.
one really sharp and the other dumber than a bag of rocks when it come to using their brain cells.
I've seen dogs better trained ( and smarter) than some relatives.


technically we're another primate , but that 1% take us leaps and bounds ahead of the other primates ( in most cases ).
language has a lot to do with it , the ability to explain a "concept" , or transfer knowledge without "show and mimic"


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2019)




----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

As you can see from the evidence submitted by laristotle, we originate out of an alien species and are de-evolving into other primates. Thats why their behaviour is like ours!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> one of those new-age-ey-science-and-spirituality things you need to live in certain parts of California to wrap your head around.


this part was pure gold. the rest of the post was good as is standard for you. but the above line made me lol irl



Electraglide said:


> Some could probably come up with proof that there are a lot of 'humans' that don't understand everything you said that chimps don't understand. We are unique, we are superior.....not too sure about that. There's 6+ billion of us stumbling around which makes us kinda commonplace. Superior? To what? Are we a food source? Yup and in a face to face all things being equal battle a chimp will tear us apart every time. So could a lot of the other primates.


the limitations of the physical mean that sure, that ape is super strong compared to us. however, the mind is far less limited in it's power. hypothetically, lets imagine some weird radiation killed all of the electronics on the entire earth so that nothing that uses electricity would function ever again. most of our technology would evaporate in short order, and the need to know those things would instantly vanish. if we had to go to war with those apes, we'd still win. and we'd win decisively in short order. brain beats brawn in _almost _every scenario. strength and speed are useful, but the advantages they provide are limited. the power of the human mind is still surprising us, and will continue to do so for a looooong time. it's limits are still unknown.

@KapnKrunch......you gotta figure that chimps and other great apes have about the same amount of DNA so that would make the 1% a pretty small difference don't you think.[/QUOTE]

i don't think the observation you are questioning is that useful to begin with. i look at it more like a penis. how long it is, ain't really as important as what you can do with it.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

cheezyridr said:


> ...what you can do with it.


Which turns out to be a lot.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Some of the discussion here reflects a misunderstanding of a) what genes do, and b) what the degree of genetic similarity does and does not reflect.

Note that it takes genes to grow flesh, hair, bones, organs, nerve cells, eggs, sperm, blood cells, repair cells, produce digestive juices, produce sweat, have an immune system, have eyes and ears in your head instead of elsewhere or not at all, and so on. Genes never act _in spite of_ circumstances, but _in concert with_ them. So as you develop in utero (or in an eggshell, as the case may be) genes respond to the chemical signals around and inside the cell, such that the cell doesn't turn into this or that kind of tissue unless those chemical triggers/signals are present. Indeed, one of the several kinds of identical twins gestate in different amniotic sacs. Even though they share 100% of their DNA, because the internal chemical environment in those separate sacs can be different, the same genetic material is _expressed_ differently. Never confuse DNA similarity with how DNA gets expressed in the end.

Most of our genetic material addresses the basic physiological processes and tissue construction. If you're a species with nerve cells, and especially a brain, you share genetic material with humans. If you have hair on the outside, you share DNA. If you have teeth, chew food, digest it, and shit it out after it passes through a digestive tract, you share a helluva lot of DNA with humans. If your brain and glands produce the same basic hormones and neurotransmitters found in human brains, you share DNA with us (that's why we can study drugs for people and nervous diseases of humans in rats and mice). If it's a metabolic or physiological process that every member of that species does, in addition to every member of a lot of other species, then a) there's genes for it to insure that it always occurs, and b) those genes are in common with all those other species.

Very little of our DNA is allocated to what makes us _behaviourally_ different. So, a 99% overlap in DNA with another species may mean diddley squat with respect to behaviour, intelligence, social organization, etc. That 1% may reflect large disparities, simply because 1) there is a LOT of DNA, including packed into that 1%, and 2) you can't behave in any way whatsoever in the absence of a body, and a body constructed and functioning in the manner that permits those behaviours requires a LOT of DNA. Nearly all of it. A lot of behaviour and behavioural differences arise from how DNA dictates body. We have thumbs, instead of 5 adjacent toes on a paw. Makes a big behavioural difference. Both our eyes face front, instead of having one on each side of our head. Makes a big difference in our behaviour. Those physical features are shared with other primates, and come from the 99% that is shared. What we do with it is somewhat different, though, and that comes out of the 1%.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> What we do with it is somewhat different, though, and that comes out of the 1%.


Is it this 1% difference that allows our intellectual abilities to adapt to the environment and change/manipulate it?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Some of it, yes. It's not like other species are complete idiots. They adapt nicely and sometimes change/manipulate the environment as well. Maybe not in as complex and staggering a way, but they're capable of changing things to suit them.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Hey guys, why don't you guys just go to the beginning of everything, and start there? Who cares about apes and the psilocybin they snorted, if you can't figure out how any of this goddamn place started? Trust me...you'll eventually get to monkeys n' shit.

Why not discuss the latest information we have about the big-bang and go from there? Talk about those little particles (that CERN found in that hadron collider) that created those tiny little pieces of shit that make the vertices for that weird-ass double tetrahedron that sits at the top of a jewish alter? And how the affinity of one particle to the next (within the shape) creates that crazy-ass spinning that approaches the speed of light. Kapoooooooooooow. Monkeys!!!

I think Einstein was trying to tell us all in the latter part of his life to cut this shit out. I think the guy who invented the camera/catheter scope thing also helped finish off Einstein's unified field theory. We are the lovers of time-wasting and experiencing.

Sometimes, you have to look up. Look around. Give your head a shake. And listen to those fucked-up geniuses who not only invent something like an EEG, or an electroencephalograph, but also tell you to balance your energy centers like a bunch of hippy nutjobs.

Sorry Dave. Just messing with you. I actually just did this for one person. I'm just waiting to see if he likes the post. (so, sorry for the slight derail and seeming rant)


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Adcandour said:


> I actually just did this for one person.


You are now totally playing on the fact that I am one of the world's most curious persons.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

good thing your name isn't george ....


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2019)

We are becoming Amazon Primates.


----------



## bluebayou (May 25, 2015)

Over rated, self important, destructive, self destructive arseholes


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

yup, my stock and trade .


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

yet , never once to the other primate kids say "are we there yet ?"


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

you know Syd, I really like bananas.....I mean, heck: we all do, right?

but for me, it goes much further than that


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In case it was not evident until now, the stance of the original speaker in this thread was not that "we're just as bad as them", but rather that "they" can also show characteristics surprisingly similar to us (i.e., we have historically misjudged them somewhat), and that we are also somewhat influenced by factors similar to them. That is, more overlap than one sometimes might think.

I'll just add that he ended up studying baboons because he was interested in how stress - including that stemming from social sources - impacts on health. Baboons live in small-ish highly interactive and competitive troops, that are also in competition with other nearby troops. Typically juvenile/adolescent males are booted out of a troop and incorporated into neighbouring ones, where they establish their role by challenging other males over time. Not quite a Freudian incest taboo, it does help in diversifying the gene pool. The females have a dominance hierarchy as well, and have pick of who they want to mate with, and how many other baboons rush to take care of their offspring, but remain in the same troop for their lifetime. Sapolsky spent a significant amount of time learning to blow-dart the baboons to take blood samples to examine stress hormones and other biomarkers. The baboons were on to him such that he had to constantly diversify his methods; even going so far as to use different vehicles to approach the troop, so as to avoid an "Oh shit, not THAT thing again! Everybody into the bushes!" reaction. You don't jerk around or piss off baboons. Their incisors are bigger than a lion's.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

"This whole volume is one long argument." --Darwin

Surprising how the same issues repeated over and over in Origin of Species are still unresolved today. 

I repeat -- without the necessary PROOF, that we are ape descendants, this entire approach is a waste of time. Unfortunately, proof either way is so sketchy as to be futile. Definitely the scientists' job to study this stuff, of course, but let's keep the boundaries correct. 

I have nothing personally invested in the current academic view, so...

Sorry, I am stuck in their similarities to us, not our similarities to them.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I found this and took screenshots. His writing style is much like his style of presenting (as @mhammer mentioned). 
Quite witty.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

They learn and they adapt.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

yeh , but that colored dude is trying to car jack their veihicle


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

greco said:


> You are now totally playing on the fact that I am one of the world's most curious persons.


Just remember to let go of the berries.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

oldjoat said:


> yeh , but that colored dude is trying to car jack their veihicle


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> Just remember to let go of the berries.


??????


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

what? they act like it's their car/house now ....
this dude is trying to take it away from them .
heck , even brought the kids along to go for the drive ( but can't get'em to buckle up )



Electraglide said:


> Just remember to let go of the berries.


how they catch monkeys ... berries in a jug with a small mouth ... as long as the fist is closed around the "food" the monkey is trapped.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

KapnKrunch said:


> "This whole volume is one long argument." --Darwin
> 
> Surprising how the same issues repeated over and over in Origin of Species are still unresolved today.
> 
> ...


It's my understanding we have more than sufficient proof in natural science to determine this. Am I missing something?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

Or are we talking solely about Darwinism and natural selection?


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

A quick review of the site's contents (very nicely laid out, btw) offers zero evidence of species change. Only the "similarities" in genetics and behaviour that this discussion is running on. And the usual double talk about pre-supposed timelines. I am not against evolution, I simply recognize it as good science within a species, and as bad science when applied to the origin of species. 

Some people need to have an explanation at any cost -- scientific, religious, whatever. I would rather have no explanation than put time, money, effort and faith into an error. 

Yes, they are missing something. No proof of one species changing to another. They can contrive all the "EVIDENCE" they want. It's still not "PROOF", because it doesn't exist in nature now, and I doubt it ever did.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

KapnKrunch said:


> They can contrive all the "EVIDENCE" they want. It's still not "PROOF", because it doesn't exist in nature now


Are you saying that the evidence that dinosaurs existed isn't proof they actually did because they don't exist in nature now? Are you asking for "absolute proof"? That'll never happen and I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of that. Interesting topic for sure.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> Are you saying that the evidence that dinosaurs existed isn't proof they actually did because they don't exist in nature now? Are you asking for "absolute proof"? That'll never happen and I'm pretty sure you're fully aware of that. Interesting topic for sure.


This thread is certainly getting more interesting with each new post.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

KapnKrunch said:


> A quick review of the site's contents (very nicely laid out, btw) offers zero evidence of species change. Only the "similarities" in genetics and behaviour that this discussion is running on. And the usual double talk about pre-supposed timelines. I am not against evolution, I simply recognize it as good science within a species, and as bad science when applied to the origin of species.
> 
> Some people need to have an explanation at any cost -- scientific, religious, whatever. I would rather have no explanation than put time, money, effort and faith into an error.
> 
> Yes, they are missing something. No proof of one species changing to another. They can contrive all the "EVIDENCE" they want. It's still not "PROOF", because it doesn't exist in nature now, and I doubt it ever did.


Are you arguing for a Biblical view, or am I misunderstanding you somehow? Just looking for some clarification.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

The dinosaurs exist in nature as complete fossils, they don't have to be alive. The 6000 "humanoids" are just people not median species.

I appreciate your scientific acumen, mhammer, but I am arguing philosophically...

So was Darwin, when he countered opponents of his THEORY. His naturalist observations and mental conjectures are offered only as possible explanations to the problems facing his THEORY. 

He was at heart just an adventurer, but I also applaud his honesty as a scientist. He wasn't trying to make money selling books and entertaining crowds. 

And I don't think he would have kissed ass to get a Ph.D.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

And oh yeah. Lots of bad science from the Creationists too.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2019)

KapnKrunch said:


> Lots of bad science from the Creationists too.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

KapnKrunch said:


> The dinosaurs exist in nature as complete fossils, they don't have to be alive. The 6000 "humanoids" are just people not median species.
> 
> I appreciate your scientific acumen, mhammer, but I am arguing philosophically...
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm missing the specific point of reference you are responding to, but I'm still not getting what your point is, or what you are seemingly objecting to. That includes "kissing ass to get a Ph.D.". Something seems to have you a little miffed or distrusting. I just don't know what. Again, some clarification needed. Maybe it's crystal clear to others here, but it's going over my head, perhaps because it's connected to an earlier discussion.

Mark


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Isn't saying humans are just another primate sort of an insult to other primates????


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I know you're just being coy, but the fact is that, despite our frequent haughty belief that we are somehow "different" and better, humans ARE technically primates. The differences between us and other primates are something under constant revision and exploration.

And that IS certainly one of our differences. Other primates are certainly curious and observant, but they do not work towards a system of codified knowledge that all (or most) can agree on. _Individuals_ in other primate species can arrive at principles they apply (e.g., peel back the side elements of a branch to make a stick that will get you more termites from a log), and others may well be able to copy the behaviour, but there is no attempt to codify principles and link them to other features of the physical world and their corresponding codified principles; or to make efforts to transmit it. In other words, we may not be the only species that gains something one might call "knowledge", but we may be the only species that aims for consilience. Consilience - Wikipedia


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> I'm still not getting what your point is, or what you are seemingly objecting to.


Same here...and I'm trying.


mhammer said:


> That includes "kissing ass to get a Ph.D."


This totally loses me.


mhammer said:


> Again, some clarification needed. Maybe it's crystal clear to others here, but it's going over my head


I'd also be interested in clarification as it is not clear to me.

Thanks


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I know you're just being coy, but the fact is that, despite our frequent haughty belief that we are somehow "different" and better, humans ARE technically primates. The differences between us and other primates are something under constant revision and exploration.
> 
> And that IS certainly one of our differences. Other primates are certainly curious and observant, but they do not work towards a system of codified knowledge that all (or most) can agree on. _Individuals_ in other primate species can arrive at principles they apply (e.g., peel back the side elements of a branch to make a stick that will get you more termites from a log), and others may well be able to copy the behaviour, but there is no attempt to codify principles and link them to other features of the physical world and their corresponding codified principles; or to make efforts to transmit it. In other words, we may not be the only species that gains something one might call "knowledge", but we may be the only species that aims for consilience. Consilience - Wikipedia


I wish you'd quote who you're talking to. I'm lost.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm responding to the last "coy" comment before my own, being Robert1950 (or does the eyeroll emoji not imply "coy"?). I guess I thought it was more obvious than it was.

Sorry for the confusion, Chris.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

KapnKrunch said:


> Any proof that other primate DNA can be converted to human DNA? Or has been?
> 
> Tiny Genetic Differences between Humans and Other Primates Pervade the Genome


No replies to this question and no responses to the article in Scientific American about the huge differences between us and apes due to genetics. 

Kiss ass for a Ph.D.? 

My friend is a geologist who has travelled the world researching river beds. He chose the job for the travel and adventure. He admits that his thesis was "bullshit." I have another friend who never got a Ph.D. in Economics because he refused to say what they wanted to hear. It's status quo. 

Glad you asked... I know these incidents are just anecdotal, but now you know why I am suspicious. I have been to university too and enjoyed bullshitting my way to top marks whenever I could. There was no fooling the philosophy professor however. Or any other discipline involving logic rather than conjecture.

Forget that, we are getting sidetracked.

MY BIG DEAL: Any proof that ape DNA can be converted to human DNA? 

If someone had just answered "no" or "I don't know" or "here it is" I would have exited this thread then. I have no proof that it can't be done, so discussion is over for me.

And I still say it's bullshit that coffee aroma is weak these days because my nose is old. 

Seriously, sorry I can't make myself clear. Perhaps an analogy...

The atomic bomb is proof. Fancy talk by johnny-come-lately who thinks he is smarter than Einstein is not proof. 

Fossil samples of median species (human and non-human) would be proof. Bone fragments and mishapen ape and human skulls don't really convince me. And where are the median animals from these time periods showing solid evolutionary progress across the board? You can't pick and choose, it was either happening or it wasn't.

Doesn't this seem like a reasonable demand if we are going to stop calling this a theory and start calling it fact?

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

laristotle said:


> View attachment 267602


Nah.

Science: nobody times nothing equals everything

Religion: somebody times something equals everything

It may surprise some of you that the first six months of philosophy is nothing but mathematical formulae. It is simply the application of logic to establish likely truth. In any field. 

Darwin was good at it. If this, then that. 

Today's science, especially as presented in media, is suspiciously lacking in "if's" and suspiciously heavy on "then's".

EDIT: whenever I listen to a serious discussion on anything I look first for the supposition it is based on. It's there every time, and you decide conciously or not whether you concur. Doesn't matter if it is science, religion, politics, sports, art, literature, guitars. Something is always supposed. Always.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Convert ape DNA to human DNA? What kind of bizarre ideation is that? It already IS mostly the same DNA. There's nothing to "convert".
As for altering DNA, things like CRISPR technology already permit the modification of gene sequences. The thing is, you have to know what genes do what, and what they would need to be changed to to do something else that was more useful.

I joke that psychology branched out into cognitive science, for those folks who really wanted to be philosophers but knew they could never get gainful employment as such, and neuroscience, for those folks who kept applying but still couldn't get into a med school program. I have a Ph.D. I worked long and hard for it, did some good work, and generally never bring it up unless money is riding on it or I need someone to take me seriously. It doesn't reflect any sort of higher intelligence, merely time allocated to learning and thinking about an area that has engendered better analytic skill in that domain. I suppose some folks do get theirs with bullshit, but I know I didn't and neither did my colleagues.

One of my best friends in middle school lived next door to me. His dad was the chair of the philosophy department at Carleton, and taught courses in explanation and objectivity. Both he and his brother had been IQ tested young, and were several standard deviation above the mean, having benefitted from an intellectually challenging youth and decent parents. He had read much of Charles Dickens by age 12, but encouraged me to read Oliver Twist "for the gory parts", so make of that what you will. We lost touch when I moved away after grade 8, so I got curious one day and Googled him to see whatever became of him. Was he also a philosophy prof like his dad? Or a literary critic? Nope. He became an investment maven, sold his company to AIG for near half a billion, has school wings named after him and his wife, sits on several big-deal boards of directors, lives in a big Forest Hills mansion, and decided to move into financing movie development. So much for philosophy.

And yes, something always IS supposed. That also includes those skepticism enters the room before they do.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I'm just waiting for an answer on how we came about if we didn't evolve from primates. I don't expect an answer honestly.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2019)

Dorian2 said:


> I'm just waiting for an answer on how we came about if we didn't evolve from primates.


I'm sticking with post #23.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Convert ape DNA to human DNA? What kind of bizarre ideation is that? It already IS mostly the same DNA. There's nothing to "convert".
> As for altering DNA, things like CRISPR technology already permit the modification of gene sequences. The thing is, you have to know what genes do what, and what they would need to be changed to to do something else that was more useful.
> 
> I joke that psychology branched out into cognitive science, for those folks who really wanted to be philosophers but knew they could never get gainful employment as such, and neuroscience, for those folks who kept applying but still couldn't get into a med school program. I have a Ph.D. I worked long and hard for it, did some good work, and generally never bring it up unless money is riding on it or I need someone to take me seriously. It doesn't reflect any sort of higher intelligence, merely time allocated to learning and thinking about an area that has engendered better analytic skill in that domain. I suppose some folks do get theirs with bullshit, but I know I didn't and neither did my colleagues.
> ...


The word "Ideation" makes no sense there to me.

If the DNA is so similar why can't all primates mate indiscriminately. Nature does not allow this. Something missing. Make me some DNA that will make my next kid a gorilla.

I just PM'd to apologize before seeing your post. I was out in the garage playing my guitar when I figured you were a Ph.D. by your reaction to the term "kiss ass". So I hereby publicly apologize for that rudeness. I am sure there are many sincere academics out there. Sorry about that. Funny how guitar playing works on my brain, couldn't live without it. 

Your story about philosopher kid gone decadent does nothing to discredit the philosophical discipline. Just describes him as he is himself.

I think your last sentence needs the word "whose" added to make sense. In which case I agree entirely and has been my point all along. I (myself) SUPPOSE that most people believe their own bullshit, whenever I enter the room, including our illustrious speaker in the OP's post. Happy to say I am often wrong.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I'd like to clarify my post above. I do happen to believe that we are both closely related and most likely do come from other primates based on data. Having said that, there has always been the question or notion of a "missing link" out there. That may or may not indicate this not so perfect science can only be based on the evidence provided so far. But science has come a very long way since Darwin's theory. I'm not even sure if that theory is even a "thing" in its original context now.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Dorian2 said:


> I'd like to clarify my post above. I do happen to believe that we are both closely related and most likely do come from other primates based on data. Having said that, there has always been the question or notion of a "missing link" out there. That may or may not indicate this not so perfect science can only be based on the evidence provided so far. But science has come a very long way since Darwin's theory. I'm not even sure if that theory is even a "thing" in its original context now.


Check out the fossil evidence in the Wikipedia link in post#61. A few bones and skulls is what they have. Not good enough for me. YMMV.

Check out the genetic speculation in the Scientific American in post #21. We are a long way from understanding the implications of minute changes to the immense redundance of DNA. 

As I said earlier, I prefer no explanation.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

KapnKrunch said:


> The word "Ideation" makes no sense there to me.
> 
> If the DNA is so similar why can't all primates mate indiscriminately. Nature does not allow this. Something missing. Make me some DNA that will make my next kid a gorilla.


I said "ideation" because the notion of converting one species' DNA to anothers struck me as very weird logic; like trying to add clouds and MIles Davis as if they were an arithmetic problem.
A lot of the DNA is allocated to basic metabolic, structural stuff. So it's going to be identical anyway. As for mating, non-human apes have a different number of chromosomes than humans. We have 23 pairs (46 in all) while apes have 24 pairs, and some monkeys have more, while others have less. You can find a fairly informative (and surprising) chromosome count, by species, here: List of organisms by chromosome count - Wikipedia
While one can identify analogous genes in different species that do the same thing (e.g., make nasal mucus-producing cells, make arterial cells), that doesn't mean they will be found on the analogous chromosome; especially if two species don't have the same number of chromosomes.


> I just PM'd to apologize before seeing your post. I was out in the garage playing my guitar when I figured you were a Ph.D. by your reaction to the term "kiss ass". So I hereby publicly apologize for that rudeness. I am sure there are many sincere academics out there. Sorry about that. Funny how guitar playing works on my brain, couldn't live without it.


No offense taken.


> Your story about philosopher kid gone decadent does nothing to discredit the philosophical discipline. Just describes him as he is himself.


I guess the only thing I was implying was that you think kids raised in a certain milieu are gonna go a certain way, and they surprise you. I'm a research psychologist by training, and my wife a cell biologist by training, now working as a toxicologist. I've played guitar since 1963, and have been building my own pedals and pickups and occasionally guitars since around 1978. Neither of our boys pursued any of the sciences, or have any affinity for music, and neither went beyond undergrad. It happens. Bach had 24 kids and many of them became musicians, though not all did. Makes you wonder what they did for a living.


> I think your last sentence needs the word "whose" added to make sense. In which case I agree entirely and has been my point all along. I (myself) SUPPOSE that most people believe their own bullshit, whenever I enter the room, including our illustrious speaker in the OP's post. Happy to say I am often wrong.


Correct on all counts. I'll leave my spelling error intact so that your own comment doesn't look weird.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

mhammer said:


> I said "ideation" because the notion of converting one species' DNA to anothers struck me as very weird logic; like trying to add clouds and MIles Davis as if they were an arithmetic problem.
> A lot of the DNA is allocated to basic metabolic, structural stuff. So it's going to be identical anyway. As for mating, non-human apes have a different number of chromosomes than humans. We have 23 pairs (46 in all) while apes have 24 pairs, and some monkeys have more, while others have less.


Good answer. I will try to bone up on this stuff for our next argument, I mean discussion.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

KapnKrunch said:


> Check out the fossil evidence in the Wikipedia link in post#61. A few bones and skulls is what they have. Not good enough for me. YMMV.
> 
> Check out the genetic speculation in the Scientific American in post #21. We are a long way from understanding the implications of minute changes to the immense redundance of DNA.
> 
> As I said earlier, I prefer no explanation.


That's all good. I'm just viewing this as a very plausible explanation. Hell, we may never get to the truth. I'm really not qualified in any way except for the fact that it makes the most sense to me. This goes back to how the guy in the OP video was mentioning certain differences between human thinking and Primate thinking process.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)




----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Now for the screaming. They say that humans and some of the other great apes can interbreed. Look up Humanzee.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

butterknucket said:


>


Never underestimate the degree of stupidity that can occur in people who _think_ they understand genetics but really don't.
If one looks at what sorts of "documentaries" that YT channel posts, it's pretty much all sensationalistic clickbait.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Never underestimate the degree of stupidity that can occur in people who _think_ they understand genetics but really don't.
> If one looks at what sorts of "documentaries" that YT channel posts, it's pretty much all sensationalistic clickbait.


I only have an extremely basic understanding of genetics, but I know that human animal interbreeding isn't possible. 

I just remembered that doc from several years ago and thought I'd post it for humour.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just to be clear, I was referring to Stalin and people of that era. Watson & Crick would not reveal the double helix for some time after that.

I have a book from 1934, Mussolini-era Italy, that I acquired from the discard pile when I was working at a library many years ago. The book, entitled "Sexual Relations of Mankind" was by an anthropology prof from the University of Florence, and is full of the worst, most laughable tripe you can imagine. The numbered edition and gold leaf on the spine doesn't save it. For starters, he explains that, during arousal, African penises actually get _smaller_ (whew!! European male ego saved!). He also explodes the received wisdom that the offspring of interracial couplings will be sterile. You may have, in your life (or even in a Nirvana song), heard the term "mulatto". When a horse and donkey are interbred, the result is a mule. However, mules are sterile and cannot reproduce. The assumption of the time, amongst _some_ folks, was that mixed-race children would be similarly sterile; hence "mulatto". However, this *BRAVE* anthropologist was able to confirm, through reports from missionaries in deepest darkest Africa and the South Pacific that, yes, couples who were themselves mixed race, were able to successfully have their own children. Imagine that!! I'll bet Thomas Jefferson was rolling in his grave, thinking that his secret was no longer safe.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> I'm just waiting for an answer on how we came about if we didn't evolve from primates. I don't expect an answer honestly.


We didn't evolve _from_ primates. We ARE primates, and evolved into our own specific form of primate-ness over many generations, just as all the other primates evolved into their special form as well. There are no gorillas, siamangs, or gibbons concurrent with Australopthicus in the fossil record.
Thinking about your question got me curious, so I did some quick poking around. What defines a "primate" is the thumb, and subcategories of primates are identified by the form the thumb takes. Here's a nice summary slide I found from a University of Washington presentation. The same presentation goes into much greater discussion of the evolution of thumbs. Long before it enabled Richie Havens and Joni Mitchell to be considered competent guitar players, thumbs played a key role in the evolution of other physical, behavioural, and social traits in our own and other species:


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2019)




----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Just to be clear, I was referring to Stalin and people of that era. Watson & Crick would not reveal the double helix for some time after that.
> 
> I have a book from 1934, Mussolini-era Italy, that I acquired from the discard pile when I was working at a library many years ago. The book, entitled "Sexual Relations of Mankind" was by an anthropology prof from the University of Florence, and is full of the worst, most laughable tripe you can imagine. The numbered edition and gold leaf on the spine doesn't save it. For starters, he explains that, during arousal, African penises actually get _smaller_ (whew!! European male ego saved!). He also explodes the received wisdom that the offspring of interracial couplings will be sterile. You may have, in your life (or even in a Nirvana song), heard the term "mulatto". When a horse and donkey are interbred, the result is a mule. However, mules are sterile and cannot reproduce. The assumption of the time, amongst _some_ folks, was that mixed-race children would be similarly sterile; hence "mulatto". However, this *BRAVE* anthropologist was able to confirm, through reports from missionaries in deepest darkest Africa and the South Pacific that, yes, couples who were themselves mixed race, were able to successfully have their own children. Imagine that!! I'll bet Thomas Jefferson was rolling in his grave, thinking that his secret was no longer safe.


Interesting how science can evolve too . Perhaps in 100 years someone will say "I have a Wikipedia article from 2019 that says that humans are primates. Can you believe it?".


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

I cast scorn upon your opposable thumbs. All thumbs is the most highly evolved species.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

KapnKrunch said:


> I cast scorn upon your opposable thumbs. All thumbs is the most highly evolved species.


My son drew my attention to this yesterday. Creepy.
The Third Thumb Project


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

mhammer said:


> We didn't evolve _from_ primates. We ARE primates, and evolved into our own specific form of primate-ness over many generations, just as all the other primates evolved into their special form as well. There are no gorillas, siamangs, or gibbons concurrent with Australopthicus in the fossil record.
> Thinking about your question got me curious, so I did some quick poking around. What defines a "primate" is the thumb, and subcategories of primates are identified by the form the thumb takes. Here's a nice summary slide I found from a University of Washington presentation. The same presentation goes into much greater discussion of the evolution of thumbs. Long before it enabled Richie Havens and Joni Mitchell to be considered competent guitar players, thumbs played a key role in the evolution of other physical, behavioural, and social traits in our own and other species:


It was actually a rhetorical question that I didn't make very clear. It should have been worded differently and aimed in a more specific direction. I worded it that way to avoid putting my own words into anybody else's mouth in case I misunderstood the meaning and context of certain posts.

And yes I'm still being fairly elusive in my wording because I feel this conversation could possibly go in a direction I'm fairly opposed to. Thanks for the post though.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

KapnKrunch said:


> I cast scorn upon your opposable thumbs. All thumbs is the most highly evolved species.


Why thank you


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

No problem. It got me thinking about something that I hadn't previously considered, and may well follow up on, so I'm grateful for the detour. How did thumbs evolve, and where did "5 digits" come from? Cartoon humans seem to do okay with 4, but somehow 5 provides some sort of adaptive advantage. Not just to humans but to many other species as well, including some that may not seem quite so obvious ( Why do most species have five digits on their hands and feet? ). I'm now curious about how and when such "arm/leg endings" developed, and when this sort of standardization became "standard" during evolution.

As an undergrad, my room-mate and I had a cat who delivered her litter in my bedroom closet. One of her litter had 6 toes, whom we named Hexapod. Dumb as mud, but the first one of the litter to stand and walk. Of course, with such big wide feet, you couldn't knock it over with a tornado.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> No problem. It got me thinking about something that I hadn't previously considered, and may well follow up on, so I'm grateful for the detour. How did thumbs evolve, and where did "5 digits" come from? Cartoon humans seem to do okay with 4, but somehow 5 provides some sort of adaptive advantage. Not just to humans but to many other species as well, including some that may not seem quite so obvious ( Why do most species have five digits on their hands and feet? ). I'm now curious about how and when such "arm/leg endings" developed, and when this sort of standardization became "standard" during evolution.
> 
> As an undergrad, my room-mate and I had a cat who delivered her litter in my bedroom closet. One of her litter had 6 toes, whom we named Hexapod. Dumb as mud, but the first one of the litter to stand and walk. Of course, with such big wide feet, you couldn't knock it over with a tornado.


We've got 5 digits for the same reason we have 2 eyes (unless you're an insect), 1 nose, legs and arms that are multiples of 2, etc. However we were first created - there were a number of standard features they started with.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2019)




----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

laristotle said:


> View attachment 267676


"You'll find out when you die."

"I can't wait until I die."

"You can't wait until tomorrow?"


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Interesting how science can evolve too . Perhaps in 100 years someone will say "I have a Wikipedia article from 2019 that says that humans are primates. Can you believe it?".



The beauty of science is that those who follow it are always willing to listen to new evidence. We don't know everything yet, but we know more all the time.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> We've got 5 digits for the same reason we have 2 eyes (unless you're an insect), 1 nose, legs and arms that are multiples of 2, etc. However we were first created - there were a number of standard features they started with.


Created?

LMAO

Sorry, couldn't help myself.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> 1 nose


Two nostrils.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Milkman said:


> The beauty of science is that those who follow it are always willing to listen to new evidence. We don't know everything yet, but we know more all the time.


In the meantime, what we think we know will be presented as absolute fact.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Created?
> 
> LMAO
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself.


You got a better way to put it?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> We've got 5 digits for the same reason we have 2 eyes (unless you're an insect), 1 nose, legs and arms that are multiples of 2, etc. However we were first created - there were a number of standard features they started with.


With all due respect, Chris, "it is because it is" isn't much of an explanation. And since so many other species have five digits, I'm assuming there is some biomechanical advantage provided by 5 digits that 4 and 6 don't give you; at least within the ecological niche we occupy. Plenty of species also have two eyes, but they have them situated in a way that does not afford the perceptual advantages that facing front does. Our old pet rabbit had a slender head and only minimal visual-field overlap between the two eyes since they are more side-mounted than front-mounted in rabbits and many other rodents. That provides a better surveillance function for animals that are prey and need better peripheral vision, but piss poor in terms of judging distance, compared to binocular vision. Binocular vision and thumbs seem to have co-evolved for species whose defense seemed to have emphasized tree life.

It is somewhat mistaken to assume that a species "begins" with some standard set of features. Species mutate. The environment changes in some manner that favours some mutations and potentially penalizes other traits, so the mutated version has better reproductive success in the long run. And bit by bit, over many generations, something identifiable as a different species emerges in which a given set of traits - initially mutations - becomes "standard issue". 

It's a bit like band practice. The first 10 run-throughs, this member comes in a little early, that one comes in a little late, and that other one is a little out of tune with the other 4 band members. You're all within a reasonable distance of the same tune, and it is clearly identifiable as the same tune, but it's not until 30 practices or more later that you start to sound "tight"; where everybody's timing, harmony, rhythm and intonation is aligned. So mutations (a gift of sexual reproduction) alter the basic species form-factor a teensy bit, but it's still clearly the same species. Individual members of the same species have their individual mutations and small differences, and reproductive success nudges the species in the direction of these or those mutations until, once a successful and adaptive set of traits is landed on, the species becomes more or less standardized, with a little variation just in case (i.e., sexual reproduction is there to mix things up in case the world changes).

I've mentioned in past of a talk I attended on the co-evolution of flowers and pollinators. Different parts of the visible spectrum have different wavelengths. Violet/purple is at the very short-wavelength end, red at the complete other long wavelength end, and yellow/green somewhere in the middle. Flowers evolved to attract pollinators by both distinctive scent and colour. Pollinators evolved with the smallest ones (flies and similarly small things) first, and larger ones (like hummingbirds and honeybees) evolved considerably later. What you find in the fossil record is that the earliest flowers to evolve were in the purple-blue end of the spectrum (i.e., short wavelength to match small eyes), and red-orange flowers didn't evolve until later when larger pollinators with bigger eyes had also evolved. Keep in mind this was long before custom breeding of flowers, where we're talking about the untainted colour of wild flowers.

Things co-evolve in interesting ways. Both within a species, and across species.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

KapnKrunch said:


> In the meantime, what we think we know will be presented as absolute fact.


No, it’s more a case of here’s our evidence. Now, prove us wrong. None of that old “the revealed word of blah, blah is written here, and we must start from that”.

Any scientist will listen to and validate any true evidence.

Meh, this is probably a subject that should be avoided.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> You got a better way to put it?


With respect, I think a great way for people who get along to start arguing is by slipping down this slope.

You know my answer to your question, and I’ll step out of this one.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2019)




----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Milkman said:


> No, it’s more a case of here’s our evidence. Now, prove us wrong. None of that old “the revealed word of blah, blah is written here, and we must start from that”.
> 
> Any scientist will listen to and validate any true evidence.


Sorry. I thought you were implying that all religious people are stupid and all scientists are smart...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

KapnKrunch said:


> Sorry. I thought you were implying that all religious people are stupid and all scientists are smart...


Easy there.

You make your statements like “In the meantime, what we think we know will be presented as absolute fact”and you’re surprised someone responds?

Peace man.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> You got a better way to put it?


No. He doesn't.
Comment, then run.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)




----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And THAT's why Joni Mitchell said "We are stardust"


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

"The stars are matter
We are matter
But it doesn't matter"

Captain Beefheart's reply?


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

So what matters?


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

mhammer said:


> Species mutate


and some pretty quickly ... Flounder anyone?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2019)

Dorian2 said:


> So what matters?


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Dorian2 said:


> So what matters?


What you do with it, I think. 

Maybe... "get ourselves back to the garden".


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

KapnKrunch said:


> What you do with it, I think.
> 
> Maybe... "get ourselves back to the garden".


I was in my own garden of Eden today tending my Pot plant. Does that count?


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Abso-friggin-lutely!


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Well in the garden when the snake appears and you can't find an apple there's always Eve. Mind you, if you believe that Eve was made from one of your ribs then she must be your clone so depending on what you believe you could G F Y. In possibly a philosophical biblical way.
@mhammer.....like Hemmingway I like polydactal cats tho he had more, I only had three.....two brothers and a sister from the same litter. The one male actually had little extra paws on his front feet, the female had the most toes per feet. They learned to use the extra toes on their front feet as thumbs to help the pick up and hold things.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)




----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

laristotle said:


> No. He doesn't.
> Comment, then run.


I got the implication though. However, using the word "create" does not have to mean religion and I in fact meant it as "however things come into existence". As in I just created this post


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> I just created this post


I don't know.
I think it evolved from ones prior to yours.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> With all due respect, Chris, "it is because it is" isn't much of an explanation.


Works for me. We don't KNOW the answer. If five fingers is in fact the ideal number then why doesn't every species have that? For that matter, why isn't there just ONE species that is perfect? It makes for interesting thinking. Just the same as "Why am I here" or "How did I get here"? Questions that can not be answered. I've contemplated a lot of this stuff over the years and these days I prefer to accept it, put a pin in it and move on.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

laristotle said:


> I don't know.
> I think it evolved from ones prior to yours.


Ahhhhh, but where did the very first post come from? Huh?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> Ahhhhh, but where did the very first post come from? Huh?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)




----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Works for me. We don't KNOW the answer. If five fingers is in fact the ideal number then why doesn't every species have that? For that matter, why isn't there just ONE species that is perfect? It makes for interesting thinking. Just the same as "Why am I here" or "How did I get here"? Questions that can not be answered. I've contemplated a lot of this stuff over the years and these days I prefer to accept it, put a pin in it and move on.


1) Evolution is not teleological. That is, it is not moving towards some point of "perfection". It is _adaptation_ to a constantly moving target. Certainly, in terms of human memory and lifespan, what we have documented, or even passed down in oral history, can seem like an eternity, such that it feels to us like we have reached some ideal "forever" state, but in geological terms, it is but a mere eyeblink, if that much. I suspect you do not reject that idea, but I just wanted to make that position clear.
2) Curiosity may occasionally kill the cat, but it also opens the box and unlocks the door. Nobody has an obligation to be curious about _everything_, but a little bit will do a person some good, and may even help others as well. In my own case, I wonder what sort of biomechanical advantages it provides that it shows up so regularly, but also why it doesn't show up in a conspicuous number of cases. That's as much a question about the nature of the world, that 5 digits works well, as much as it is a question about the species that 5 digits works so well for. Not really much different than asking why there aren't many 500ft tall trees. Clearly trees DO grow tall, but maybe after a certain height, further growth becomes a disadvantage.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Electraglide said:


>


Always liked Bizarro. Sadly, when Pirarro turned it over to the new cartoonist, a couple of years ago, the quality of both thew drawings and ideas has slipped.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> 1) Evolution is not teleological. That is, it is not moving towards some point of "perfection". It is _adaptation_ to a constantly moving target. Certainly, in terms of human memory and lifespan, what we have documented, or even passed down in oral history, can seem like an eternity, such that it feels to us like we have reached some ideal "forever" state, but in geological terms, it is but a mere eyeblink, if that much. I suspect you do not reject that idea, but I just wanted to make that position clear.
> 2) Curiosity may occasionally kill the cat, but it also opens the box and unlocks the door. Nobody has an obligation to be curious about _everything_, but a little bit will do a person some good, and may even help others as well. In my own case, I wonder what sort of biomechanical advantages it provides that it shows up so regularly, but also why it doesn't show up in a conspicuous number of cases. That's as much a question about the nature of the world, that 5 digits works well, as much as it is a question about the species that 5 digits works so well for. Not really much different than asking why there aren't many 500ft tall trees. Clearly trees DO grow tall, but maybe after a certain height, further growth becomes a disadvantage.


Evolution is logical. How can you state that it's not moving toward a point of perfection while saying it's adapting to environment and circumstance. You contradict yourself. We do not know where it may take us.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

No contradiction whatsoever. Circumstances and environment changes, and species change to adapt. I concur that we do not "know" where it's taking us or any other species, but environments reach some degree of temporary stability, and the adaptations become "good enough", until things change/destabilize again, requiring yet more adaptations.

"Adaptive" and "logical" are not the same. "Logical" implies a truth function and a singular "correct" outcome (i.e., all other possibilities are illogical). "Adaptive" implies a suitable adjustment that works well enough. I don't know that we are omniscient enough to be able to say it is the _ideal_ adjustment, but if it works well enough, then that's just fine. Think of it like steering a vehicle. If the road to wherever you're headed was perfectly straight, your wheels perfectly balanced and aligned, then you could point the vehicle, and it would continue on for the entire journey no matter what the destination. But the road is NOT straight, so you have to steer. A little this way, a little that way, to adapt to the curvature and state of the road. That's evolution.

This contrasts with a more teleological (and some might say creationist) stance in which there is an endpoint of perfection that would be flawlessly adaptive to whatever changes there may be in the universe and on the planet for the entire future; no more steering required.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> No contradiction whatsoever. Circumstances and environment changes, and species change to adapt. I concur that we do not "know" where it's taking us or any other species, but environments reach some degree of temporary stability, and the adaptations become "good enough", until things change/destabilize again, requiring yet more adaptations.
> 
> "Adaptive" and "logical" are not the same. "Logical" implies a truth function and a singular "correct" outcome (i.e., all other possibilities are illogical). "Adaptive" implies a suitable adjustment that works well enough. I don't know that we are omniscient enough to be able to say it is the _ideal_ adjustment, but if it works well enough, then that's just fine. Think of it like steering a vehicle. If the road to wherever you're headed was perfectly straight, your wheels perfectly balanced and aligned, then you could point the vehicle, and it would continue on for the entire journey no matter what the destination. But the road is NOT straight, so you have to steer. A little this way, a little that way, to adapt to the curvature and state of the road. That's evolution.
> 
> This contrasts with a more teleological (and some might say creationist) stance in which there is an endpoint of perfection that would be flawlessly adaptive to whatever changes there may be in the universe and on the planet for the entire future; no more steering required.


Guess I have fewer answers and a little more wonder left in me


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And that's a pretty good state to be in, whether for a Friday or any other day!


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)




----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

laristotle said:


>


Or that they got it wrong and we actually evolved from pigs?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Maybe George had it right.


----------

