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?

[steen]

But, sorry to say you are wrong again. The concept of macroevolution is based on pure opinion, deception, and fallacy--it has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.

Really? What is "macroevolution"? certainly, any scientific presentation is based on data, and hence it has basis in reality. So if you are referring to anything currently explored in actual science, then your claim is false.

Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

You should heed your own words.

[steen]

QED:

So what is it that causes you to state with such certainty that the concept of human evolution has no basis in reality?

Well, first of all, the article you posted is very wordy, but says absolutely nothing of any substance, absolutely nothing which backs the theory of macroevolution. What part of it do you think supports evolution?

But the evidence of the Scientific Theory of Evolution is supported by the sum of biological research, not just that article. You did not complain about the ARTICLE not supporting evolution, you said that:

The concept of human evolution has no basis in reality.

"Reality" includes the collective sum of research. And THAT does cover human evolution as well as all other evolution.

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.

Flat-out false.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sp ... eandertals
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html

Note #2: You do know that leading biologists/scientists admit that body-building genes are in the ninety-eight percent of those genes we share with the great apes. The remaining two percent of genes have nothing to do with anatomy. If evolution were true, the differences between humans and chimps would be due to the remaining two percent of genes we do not share. Go do some research on that.

Huh? What ARE you talking about?

[steen]

Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos.

The program made no such claim. Why are you misrepresenting the facts?

[jcrawford]

Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos.

The program made no such claim. Why are you misrepresenting the facts?

From the OP:

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?

Aren't you descended from African Homo sapiens who evolved from bononbo and chimpanzee ancestors once upon a time?

[jcrawford]

And you accept Van Til's premise? You do realize, of course, that he designed it in such a way as to provide no way to argue reasonably against it. In fact, it denies our ability reason at all. In that sense, it can be seen as "perfect." It could be completely wrong (and is, in my view), but can never be falsified. Which makes it not worth bothering with.

Sounds like you're describing neo-Darwinist premises and systems of logic also.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos.

Aren't you descended from African Homo sapiens who evolved from bononbo and chimpanzee ancestors once upon a time?

That is two falsehoods JW. No one thinks that one either case if you could grasp that would help. We have a common ancester. They also Are very much like us and we them. Either state other's opinions accurately or don't bother posting. Are you lying or stupid? Yes it is a trick question.

[Cathar1950]

Sounds like you're describing neo-Darwinist premises and systems of logic also.

Your projecting JW. It seems you do that a lot acuse others what you do so openly.

[jcrawford]

I have noticed things being said that we are suppose to take for granted. Like the fall. Sin that is a big one. Some how we sin and Bonobo don't?
There are a lot of hidden assumptions being made.
I like these Bonobo people. They seem cool.
We are not perfect there for we have fallen and can't reason. For a bunch of primates we are pretty messed up. I do not know how we can even know we are not perfect being so messed up it would be slanted no matter how we looked at it. Yet some believe the bible is perfect. How would we know? We could say nothing is perfect and it would be perfectly true.

Typical neo-Darwinist logic.

Yes, but unfortunately, neo-Darwinists want to keep on associating the first African people on earth with some form of chimpanzee look-alikes just to prove that the racist Charles Darwin was biologically correct about the origin of the human race or 'species.'

I still have a problem with this. Are you saying it would be alright if they came from someplace else?

I'm saying it would be all right if we all descended from 6 people in Africa whose ancestors did not originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes.

I think your statement is a twisted limited view of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Africa is where we as a people all trace are roots. There were hom-erectus starting out of Africa too and they moved out. There is nothing bad about coming from Africa. We all descended from ape like creatures. It was a long time ago no of us are closer then anyone else to those creatures.

That's a twisted view of human ancestry and origins.

The people now in Africa are no closer to apes then any person on this planet.

That's true.

[jcrawford]

We have a common ancester. They also Are very much like us and we them.

Who is this common ancestor of yours, Cathar1950, who "also Are very much like us and we them?" Your common ancestor must also look very much like chimpanzees since chimp genes are 95% similar to ours and both they and bonobos shared the same common ancestor that you claim you do.

[AmerSdlbrd]

attn: jcrawford
I see you withheld any comments regarding that scumbag racist Henry Morris, or the last Christian Theocracy (you know where we live by God's law) South Africa.

scientific form of racism

Yes, racism in its most scientific form?

We did see evidence of much evolutionist racism during the 19th and 20th Centuries of European colonial and scientific expansionism around the world.

What about the age of European Imperialism, we weren't exactly holding hands and singing with the natives before the 1800s.

Neo-Darwinist racism is inescapably intrinsic to, and inherent in, all theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.

and the theory of human evolution out of Africa means that we have Robert Redford as a common ancestor?

The whole idea of inferior and superior races arose with the advent of neo-Darwinism beginning in Erasmus Darwin's time

Just keep repeating a lie and it becomes true, creation science in action. You'd think plenty of sociologists or anthropologists would've jumped on the creation science money to support that claim.

Public radio and public schools censor and ban creationists. Where's the Anti-Christian Liberties Union when we need them? Fighting for the rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois?

Yep, neo-Nazis are notorious for their atheistic beliefs...snicker....

The only importanct fact in the matter is that NPR promotes whackos while denying "truly deficient scholars" equal time.

You're absolutly correct, that is your only important fact, or even fact period.

You seem to be forgetting the Fall of Man and the subsequent curse on all the land, all animals and all men and women since then.

I wonder how Adam even survived without exploding before the Fall with all those immortal bacteria multiplying in his gut.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that our modern form and sense of logic may be somewhat limited and degenerate as a result of Adam's original sin and God's subsequent curse on human capacities like logical thinking?

Nope, never.

SPECIESHOOD

????

since "probably nearly all evolutionists" interpret racial variation in the human fossil record as evidence of different and separate SPECIESHOOD

I think you can find SPECIESHOOD right next to "scientific racism" in the encyclopedia.

the more ape-like the morphologies of our human ancestors become until at last we arrive at pure African 'species'

You know being a closet racist still makes you a racist.

evolved by 'natural selection'

"natural selection" krikey man, even Kent Hovind and Duane Gish believe in natural selection and plate tectonics

No, it is the neo-Darwinist evolutionists who seem to be confused about what constitutes humanity as opposed to mere animality.

What about uber-creationist Henry Morris...ahem...I reiterate, from his 1976 book The Genesis Record

Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Yes, but unfortunately, neo-Darwinists want to keep on associating the first African people on earth with some form of chimpanzee look-alikes

It is abundantly clear that you view Africans as different. You can liberally attach Africa, African, and Africans all day long but that only makes you racist not evolution.

neo-Darwinism just put the stamp of scientific approval and justification on such racism.

But, I thought it didn't exist before Erasmus Darwin. Plenty of genocide has been justified with the Bible. Oh wait, that was "religious racism" and usually has God's stamp of approval (if he wasn't whispering in both General's ears.)

It scientifically justified genocide.

Maybe for you.

That was religious racism, not neo-Darwinist scientific racism.

Thats right, you move those goalposts. More creation science in action.

That was cultural racism, not scientific neo-Darwinist racism

Keep moving those goalposts buddy, another fine example of creation science.

since animals don't sin, only people do

What about a man with pig arteries?

Aren't you descended from African Homo sapiens who evolved from bononbo and chimpanzee ancestors once upon a time?

In a racist special ed. kind of way, you could say so.

I'm saying it would be all right if we all descended from 6 people in Africa whose ancestors did not originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes.

It sure would be all right, but it isn't the case.