Are Apes People Too?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Are Apes People Too?

Post #1

Post by Lotan »

Meet Chantek ...

Image

Chantek isn't just any old orang, he knows ASL. Not only can he talk to humans, he can even talk to his buddy Koko, a signing gorilla.
Creationists will describe hominid fossils as entirely human or entirely ape. I'm curious what criteria they use to decide.
To put it another way - if these apes can communicate with humans, isn't it then the duty of good christians to see that they receive the gospel message?

(Here's Chantek's website in case the first link expires.)
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

User avatar
Dilettante
Sage
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Spain

Post #21

Post by Dilettante »

QED wrote:
This might be very telling indeed. I always scold him for bringing in all his catches irrespective of their purpose in his mind. So there is no positive reinforcement here, rather, it is the only gift he knows.
Interesting feline you have! I had a cat once myself, but he was mainly an outside cat. He used to catch moles and he seemed to enjoy torturing them to death: he'd chew them a bit, then he would throw them up in the air, bounce them and pick them up again as if they were basketballs. Then his poor victims ended up on my doormat.

What I've noticed is that cats in anglo-saxon nations are, as a rule, both more docile and more idiosyncratic than Spanish cats. This is perhaps due to the different attitude towards animals in our respective cultures. Could it be that cats in Britain behave more like people because they are treated more like people? Our pets study us, and perhaps learn more from us than we realize.

The Homo Floresiensis is a fascinating find. Especially because it seems to prove that, when it comes to brains, size is not that important. We'll have to wait and see what paleontologists and anthroplogists conclude from recents discoveries such as this one.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #22

Post by Cathar1950 »

Lotan wrote:
To put it another way - if these apes can communicate with humans, isn't it then the duty of good christians to see that they receive the gospel message?
No they shouldn't what did those apes do to you ? Don't be giving them ideas Lotan.

axeplayer wrote:
we Christians believe that if babies die at (or hopefully not, but sometimes) before birth, they go to heaven. Children up to about 3 or 4 would go to heaven if they died at those ages because they are not at an age where they can fully understand the idea of religion or God.
That sounds like an argument for abortion and then some. \
Save our kids ...kill them.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #23

Post by Cathar1950 »

What makes any one think that any one understands "religion and God at 4? maybe most adults still have a 3 or 4 year olds view of God and religion, for kids, it is what they are taught. Maybe you have to be like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven but that doesn't mean every childish thing is to be belived.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #24

Post by QED »

I keep on losing the plot with this one :roll: Aren't we supposed to be born contaminated with 'original sin' and can only be saved by accepting Jesus in our lives?

Actually I'm glad this thread has been resurrected ~ I was thinking to myself recently how we have only just begun to study apes (relative to evolutionary timescales) and it made me wonder what might happen after many more generations of human/ape interactions. Given that there is evidence of "cultural transmission" from ape to ape, we might witness an acceleration of evolution taking place. After all, we make excellent teachers and have access to a wide range of technology to assist with the development of ape communication.

So instead of contemplating what contact with an intelligent extraterrestrial might reveal to us, it would seem that there is a potential for a similar discovery right here on Earth.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #25

Post by Cathar1950 »

QED wrote:
I keep on losing the plot with this one Aren't we supposed to be born contaminated with 'original sin' and can only be saved by accepting Jesus in our lives?
The hebrew thought that I am familiar with doesn't have a fall of man.
He became like the God(s) and got kicked out of the Garden then promoted to the whole earth gardening. I can picture God as a parent saying "find you think your grown up well get your own place".
Original sin was one of those things made up, using Paul's analogy about Adam brings sin into the world Christ takes it away. One man vs One man.
But I think Augustine made it up and the Church bought it. Now if there was not an Adam Paul's logic and analogy fails. But it isn't the first time.
I think that Animals are like us in kind but not degree. Should retarded people be treated like animals? Maybe we are one big soul.
Don't you think we play a part in evolution? Look at the domestication of animals(beasts). Dogs warn people of epileptic seisures.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #26

Post by QED »

Thanks for that Cathar1950. Original sin seems such a riddle, but I think it is best explained by the vestiges that we all posses through our evolutionary heritage. I can quite see early philosophers inventing the notion to explain this heritage.
Cathar1950 wrote: Don't you think we play a part in evolution? Look at the domestication of animals(beasts). Dogs warn people of epileptic seisures.
Ohhh yes, absolutely! I don't think people realize just how big an influence we have had on plants and animals. Nature is extremely malleable through selective breeding and many, many, generations of men have 'tuned' just about every single resource we harvest from nature. This goes so far back in history that people seem to have forgotten the fact and wonder in amazement at how wonderful gods providence is!

The same people probably assume that hemp and poppy plants are the devils provenance. But seriously, it is quite probable that these too have been 'bio-engineered' by artificial selection for their 'active ingredients'.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #27

Post by Cathar1950 »

QED wrote:
The same people probably assume that hemp and poppy plants are the devils provenance. But seriously, it is quite probable that these too have been 'bio-engineered' by artificial selection for their 'active ingredients'.
I know I have grown some good stuff in my day.
It seems that all of nature is extremely malleable. Look at all the kinds people. Yet we all come out of Africa adapting to the enviroments.
Plants and animals in Antartica living on methane. They say that legs and arms on were developed in the water to get around plants but they worked well on land. Nature likes to adapt and flourish I think we play a part in it. I suspect that as we explore the universe we might find live to be the rule not the exception. What if the universe after it is mapped out looks like a big DNA sequence?

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #28

Post by QED »

Cathar1950 wrote: It seems that all of nature is extremely malleable.
And what a good argument against ID this is. The very fact that we can readily steer plants and animals by selectively breeding them for our own purposes shows the way in which organisms would steer themselves in the wild under natural selection pressures. The only logical place for ID would be in the creation of the original organism that initiated our common descent.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #29

Post by Cathar1950 »

QED wrote:
The only logical place for ID would be in the creation of the original organism that initiated our common descent.
not even that much. Just the ability of reality to adapt would be enough or to change including subatomic particles. It may not even take intelligence. intelligence maybe(is) an adaption. Maybe creatures are the universe's way of becoming aware of it's self. In Quantum Physics the theory that everything is related. They try to get a bacteria to eat something. Work and work on it then it happens and now it happens all the time. Crossword puzzles the next day are easier.

USIncognito
Apprentice
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:17 am

Post #30

Post by USIncognito »

QED wrote:...it made me wonder what might happen after many more generations of human/ape interactions. Given that there is evidence of "cultural transmission" from ape to ape, we might witness an acceleration of evolution taking place. After all, we make excellent teachers and have access to a wide range of technology to assist with the development of ape communication.
I'm glad I reread this thread. Your quote reminds me of something I heard or read once (or at least recall doing so) about housecats - they don't meow around each other like they do around humans. Meows of pain or warning are expressed by cats outside of human influence, as do plaintive meows like those for hunger or general displeasure, but as a cat owner, I think "feed me," "water me," "pet me," "where's my toy mouse darnit!" are expressed differently than their more primieval utterances.

And in a sad but delicious anti-tangent, Koko was observed mourning for her first kitten - All Ball - by crying alone after Dr. Penny told her about the accident that claimed All Ball's life.

Expressing emotion and communication via "speech" and physiologocal response beyond simple facial expression seems to be exhibited in many mammal species beyond humans. If our "heart" is actually in our soul, then why do non-human, and ostensibly non-souled mammals exhibit such traits?

Post Reply