More on Bonobo's

[micatala]

As I write, I am listening to National PUblic Radio's "Science Friday" program with guest primatologist Frans de Wall, author of a new book entitled "Our Inner Ape".

De Wall makes some interesting observations about Bonobos, Chimps, and Humans. Some examples:

1. Bonobos are as close to us genetically as Chimps.

2. Bonobos do not display the same type of violent behavior that Chimps sometimes do. De Walls described one case where some Chimps attacked a man and tore off his hands, feet, and 'other parts' which I will leave unmentioned.

3. Bonobos display some remarkably empathetic behavior. A couple of examples cited are:

a. A Bonobo who perceived that one of his colleagues was handicapped, and assisted him in getting from one place to another.
b. A Bonobo who, upon discovering a stunned bird, carefully picked up the bird and folding together its wings, carried it up to a high branch and assisted it in escaping from the enclosure into the sky (I could have some of the details wrong here, but the point is the Bonobo, rather than taking advantage of the bird's plight, helped it and actually had some understanding of what the bird might want from the bird's point of view).

4. Bonobo's are very promiscuous in general, and males often have sex with other males.

5. Many primates have a deep sense of 'inequity aversion', and will sometimes respond violently if they percieve they are being treated unfairly (eg. the zookeeper is giving Chimp A more food or care than Chimp's B and C). One could certainly see this aspect in human nature as well.

6. Not only Bonobo's, but also Chimps, dolphins, and other social species often make a point of caring for the injured or less fortunate individuals in the group, the opposite of what we might think of as 'social darwinism in the animal world.' One caller to the show contrasted this with the recent Katrina hurricane situation in New Orleans where some of those in the Superdome complained that they had been 'left behind' and were being 'treated like animals.'

His overall point is that Bonobo's provide a sort of counterexample to the notion that our relationship to Chimps means we are 'just animals' and that our association with primates reflects entirely negatively on us. The Bonobo's provide examples of behaviors that we would commonly think of as good, beneficial, even almost moral.



So, the questions for debate are:

1. Is it possible that this information, and the potential for additional findings along these lines, will diminish the aversion to the idea of human evolution among the general public?

2. Does this information suggest that our moral nature has evolutionary roots?

[unicorn]

For all you google lovers:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/

http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html

http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm

http://www.sniggle.net/archforg.php

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm

http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

[unicorn]

QED:

I could have linked you to the full paper...but that would have probably raised an even greater objection.

Probably because it takes twice as long to say completely nothing!

I suggest you attempt to support this extraordinary claim with some evidence of your own...

Kind of like the rubbish you posted? You know what's extraordinary? How willing you and almost everyone here is to live in ignorance. Sad, really. oops...I really mean...

[McCulloch]

Kind of like the rubbish you posted? You know what's extraordinary? How willing you and almost everyone here is to live in ignorance. Sad, really. oops...I really mean...

unicorn,
Please re-read theDebate Forum Intro and Rules. 1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence. 7. Do not post frivolous, flame bait, or inflammatory messages. 9. No unconstructive one-liners posts are allowed in debates. 14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful. If you disagree with another debater's point of view, please show using logic, reason and evidence. Your assertion that another debater's postings are rubbish is a personal attack, is not supported by evidence, could be considered inflammatory, is unconstructive and uncivil. Take this as an unofficial warning.

[unicorn]

McCulloch:

You guys don't understand logic, reason, or evidence...or haven't you noticed yet?

[Cathar1950]

How would you know?
Is that all you could find?
How about bible hoaxs and forgeries?

[McCulloch]

For all you google lovers:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/hoax/
http://www.souldevice.org/christian_evolution.html
http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/piltdown.htm
http://www.sniggle.net/archforg.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/ape.htm
http://skepdic.com/piltdown.html

It would be a bit more helpful if you could spare us a sentence or two to explain why each of these links are helpful and relevant to the debate topic.

[QED]

QED:

I could have linked you to the full paper...but that would have probably raised an even greater objection.

Probably because it takes twice as long to say completely nothing!

I suggest you attempt to support this extraordinary claim with some evidence of your own...

Kind of like the rubbish you posted? You know what's extraordinary? How willing you and almost everyone here is to live in ignorance. Sad, really. oops...I really mean...

You're doing an awful lot of laughing. Is that because you are nervous? You have just accused me of living in ignorance which I will allow you to get away with because the statement is true for all of us at the present time. What, if anything, you're adding to this discussion is a question of validity of essential information. You have called a research paper "rubbish". Well, in the spirit of Sergio Leone, I don't mind you laughing at me, but when you laugh at my mule... What is rubbish about the paper?

[AmerSdlbrd]

Attn: Unicorn

From the talkorigins.org faq you reference:

As the years went by and new finds of ancient hominids were made, Piltdown man became an anomaly that didn't fit in, a creature without a place in the human family tree.

Your "evidence" says otherwise.

Note #1: There have never been any Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal bones found ever. Ever. Go do some research on that. We are the only species of humans that has ever existed on this planet.

Never been any Cro-Magnon bones found. Ever? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, do you even know what a cro-magnon is? Go do some research on that. Thank you for making my day. This is right up there with, "if a fish evolved lungs it would drown."

[AmerSdlbrd]

1. Is it possible that this information, and the potential for additional findings along these lines, will diminish the aversion to the idea of human evolution among the general public?

I am probably not going to tell you you anyting you didn't already know, but I truly wish scientific discovery did sway the public opinion (mainly in the US) of evolution. However, I find no evidence that religious dogma of the biblical literalists is at all swayed by the empirically supported findings of science. For every one-liner the Hovinds, Behes, and Gishs dish out, the real truthseekers of the world must often write pages of highly technical literature to refute.

In the PR battle, Intelligent Design Creationism is winning. This means nothing. Plenty of people believe in holistic medicine, aura readers (Sylvia Brown), reflexology, the list goes on and on. If something is junk science it will never make its way into the science classroom. When it comes to actual court cases (not stacking the school boards) Intelligent Design Creationism loses. IDC is the Washington Generals of sciientific theory. Lets see, theres McLean v. Arkansas BoE (circa 1981)http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html or when creation science lost again in the Supreme Court circa 1987 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1618/Edwards_v.html

[AmerSdlbrd]

1. Is it possible that this information, and the potential for additional findings along these lines, will diminish the aversion to the idea of human evolution among the general public?

I am probably not going to tell you you anything you didn't already know, but I truly wish scientific discovery did sway the public opinion (mainly in the US) of evolution. However, I find no evidence that religious dogma of the biblical literalists is at all swayed by the empirically supported findings of science. For every one-liner the Hovinds, Behes, and Gishs dish out, the real truthseekers of the world must often write pages of highly technical literature to refute. The effect of this on the IDC proponenets is insignificant if not non-existent as they will admit their error but continue using that argument with no modification. Icons of Creationism such as Duane Gish have done this very thing. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html

In the PR battle, Intelligent Design Creationism is winning. This means nothing. Plenty of people believe in holistic medicine, aura readers (Sylvia Brown), reflexology, the list goes on and on. When it comes to actual court cases (not stacking the school boards) Intelligent Design Creationism loses. IDC is the Washington Generals of scientific theory. Lets see, theres McLean v. Arkansas BoE circa 1981 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html or when creation science lost again in the Supreme Court circa 1987 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1618/Edwards_v.html and we can't forget the impending "Waterloo in Dover." There are more, but those are two of the more significant and recent. When the time came to lay the cards on the table, intelligent design creationism was bluffing everytime..

2. Does this information suggest that our moral nature has evolutionary roots?

Or perhaps our immoral nature? http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org