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?

[McCulloch]

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.

Forgive me if I find your position confusing. We are to evaluate two different theories of human origins

• We all descended from 6 people in Africa whose ancestors did not originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes. Presumably the number six comes from that story in the Bible which has been used as the backbone of biblical racism. This theory is all right according to Crawford.
• We all descended from an indeterminate number of people in Africa whose ancestors did originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes. This breeding group was small enough that over a number of generations, every member had as one of their common ancestors a single individual identified by mDNA. This theory is inherently racist according to Crawford.

[jcrawford]

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.

Forgive me if I find your position confusing. We are to evaluate two different theories of human origins

• We all descended from 6 people in Africa whose ancestors did not originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes. Presumably the number six comes from that story in the Bible which has been used as the backbone of biblical racism. This theory is all right according to Crawford.

Yes, Crawford's Theory would shift attention to neo-Darwinist racial theories that African Eve and her people originated from ape and monkey ancestors in order to repopulate the world with a breed of neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens. The nice thing about Crawford's Theory is that the 6 African people who didn't originate from ape and monkey ancestors were all human beings like us and none of their ancestors or ours were a different and separate neo-Darwinist 'species' or race.

[*]We all descended from an indeterminate number of people in Africa whose ancestors did originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes.

Only neo-Darwinist racial theorists originate theories about "an indeterminate number of people in Africa whose ancestors did originate from common ancestors of monkeys and apes."

[jcrawford]

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.

What do ad hominem comments have to do with the topic of bonobos?

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

The "natives" weren't scientifically classified as inferior races or 'species' until neo-Darwinists arrived on the scene.

Just keep repeating a lie and it becomes true, creation science in action.

Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are racial lies, no matter how often repeated by propagandists for Darwin.

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

"In the world of Taxonomy there are what are called “Lumpers” and “Splitters”, those who want to relax the criteria for being considered unique, and those who want to split hairs and use increasingly smaller structures to determine ‘specieshood’, respectively."

http://www.pondplants.com/FAQ_Botanical ... onOne.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

[jcrawford]

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

Exposing the closet racism inherent in neo-Darwinist racial theories about African Eve and her origins from African ape ancestors doesn't make anyone a closet racist in and of itself any more than any other poster on the forum may be considered to be a closet racist just because they unwittingly subscribe to such theories.

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.

Nothing to do with being associated with African bonobos, I presume.

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.

It's modern neo-Darwinist geneticists who keep reiterating how much more genetically diverse and older African populations are than other racial groups, not me. Its neo-Darwinist race theorists who keep making up stories about African people originating from ape ancestors and then repopulating the world with the descendents of African Eve, not me. I just attack neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution in and out of Africa, because, according to most African Christians, Muslims and Jews, their very human ancestors are descended from 6 African people whose own human ancestors were originally created by God.

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.)

Sounds more like religious nationalism than racism to me since Moses' wife was an Ethiopian or Cushite.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/Document ... ushite.htm

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

Changing paradigms are the name of the game, buddy. Read Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper on the structure of scientific revolutions sometime.

since animals don't sin, only people do

What about a man with pig arteries?

Is he still a man?

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'd never 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.

Better to be all right than a form of scientific racism.

[AmerSdlbrd]

attn: jcrawford

What do ad hominem comments have to do with the topic of bonobos?

He is a proven racist thats all. If you consider "negroes" to be only interested in mundane practical matters, I can count on you not being in Heaven.

The "natives" weren't scientifically classified as inferior races or 'species' until neo-Darwinists arrived on the scene

You should patent your jcrawford "fact" inventor 3000.

Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are racial lies, no matter how often repeated by propagandists for Darwin.

..says you

"In the world of Taxonomy there are what are called “Lumpers” and “Splitters”, those who want to relax the criteria for being considered unique, and those who want to split hairs and use increasingly smaller structures to determine ‘specieshood’, respectively."

‘specieshood’: that right there, it means they acknowledge they are inventing a word, maybe that was G-Dub's botany class.

Nothing to do with being associated with African bonobos, I presume.

That is backpeddling, is that your "strategery?"

I just attack neo-Darwinist race theories about human evolution in and out of Africa, because, according to most African Christians, Muslims and Jews, their very human ancestors are descended from 6 African people whose own human ancestors were originally created by God.

They all believe in the same God that you do, the God of Abraham, whats your point? Additionally, plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Jews have enough science education that they have no problem balancing their faith with what science discovers. Bottom line, that is another lie, as you don't speak for "most" of them, you don't even speak for "most" Christians and it is laughable for you to think you do. What about all the other world religions? I suggest you take a course in Comparative Mythology.

Sounds more like religious nationalism than racism to me since Moses' wife was an Ethiopian or Cushite.

That has far less to do with the topic than anything I have said. But on another note, more moving of the goalposts, and more creation science in action.

Changing paradigms are the name of the game, buddy. Read Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper on the structure of scientific revolutions sometime.

Intelligent Design Creationism has been trying to revert in a backwards "paradigm shift" for the last 85 years, they have lost on every scientific front. Winning PR battles while losing on every other front is hardly a paradigm shift.

Is he still a man?

God gave us minds to inquire, just like we were able to discover our ability to perform medical miracles, we were able to put together the method by which God really created, without a book of shepherds fairy tales.

Better to be all right than a form of scientific racism

That is nonsense. Still speaking in tongues from this mornings church service?

[Cathar1950]

Quote:
Better to be all right than a form of scientific racism

I have trouble with that statement. Is it supose to make sense?

Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa are racial lies, no matter how often repeated by propagandists for Darwin.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies?

[The Happy Humanist]

Why do you keep repeating the same lies?

It's all they can do, Cathar.
1) Invent lie.
2) Spread on Internet
3) Ignore all factual refutations thereof.
4) Repeat ad nauseum.

It's why they are losing in the courts, losing in the media, and will start losing in the school boards. They can't fight evolution on rational grounds, so they try re-characterize it as something unpalatable like racism. Next thing you know they will claim that evolution causes herpes and AIDS. Oh, wait, I think they've already done that...

[Cathar1950]

I think I might be able to create a program that would do the same thing if I wanted to waste my time. Remember Lisa? I can think of a few old AI programs. They just keep answering the questions or any with the same answer. "what do you think" Nobody is home. Lisp was one language used. Been a long time but there were others.
Maybe there are no trolls only bots.

[unicorn]

Phew! You guys have had an awful lot to say while I've been gone. I don't think I can reply to all of you. But, I will reply to one of you. It is all I think needs to be said.

QED asked:

You're doing an awful lot of laughing...What is "rubbish" about the paper?

If you read the articles I posted (and the first paragraph of your article) you'll realize why I call it rubbish.

[unicorn]

...and, Jose:

If you really think someone is wrong, why not take a more compassionate view...

Because I am not a compassionate person.

...(a more Christian view, one might say)...

If you aren't Christian, please don't tell me how to be Christian. If you are, you should be patient, God is still working on me. You should have met me before I became Christian!