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?

[AmerSdlbrd]

I don't think my comments are in violation of the debate rules, they may be close but not an outright violation. If I said something like, "There have never been any Hebrew Bibles found." What would you think of anything I had to say after that? I certainly wouldn't hold my opinions on the history of the Bible in very high regard if I said something along those lines. I have offered you questions or a chance to verify your claims in each of my posts, none of which you have replied to, those are DEBATE forum rules you know, don't you?

[Cathar1950]

You might also ask if there are any NT writings around? No one even bothered to mention them till 125-150 CE.. Guess what they have been tampered with and edited. Now that is hard to do with fossils.

[Cathar1950]

unicorn WROTE:

Geez...you guys really are too soft. I'm not that mean! I don't think I'm really mean at all, actually. But, if I am being mean, I have been told I am capable of it.

kIND OF FLATERING YOURSELF?


Let's start a bot!
We can call it botroll. better then a pet rock.

[micatala]

OK, OK, can we tone it down a bit.

Since the rules have come up, I will just point out, as a moderator, that

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 (Do not simply say "Ditto" or "I disagree" in a post. Such posts add little value to debates).

Obviously, with respect to 5, people do have to use their judgment concerning how much 'research' they will do to support their positions. However, it is fair for debaters to ask for evidence when unsupported assertions are made, and it would be constructive for responses to such requests to be more than 'look it up yourself.' The assertion should be supported by the person making the assertion. If time does not permit (which I can certainly understand in my own case quite often ), one might simply accept that the assertion will stand as unsubstantiated until evidence is provided, perhaps at a later date.

In general, I think it is fair to say moderators will attempt to enforce rule 1 fairly strictly. Comments like the following, while humorous, are not really necessary and are against the spirit of rule 1, and perhaps also 9.

So the comments we see are your most polite efforts?

That was almost funny! I think you need to take a look at the forum/debate rules.

Feel free to PM me if there are any questions.

[Cathar1950]

I might have been a little crass. I apologize and wish I could bake everyone cookies. MMMM Cookies! I hear a lot of name calling indirectly and intolerance. I try to avoid it and usually use their words to be a smart a**. Every believer has a different point of view as do unbelievers. I am glad we ge to air our differences and discuss topics that are sacred and near and dear to us. It is hard to provide evidence for things that are pretty much metaphysical. What I try to understand is even the bible writers were doing some creating and reworking of their own. If the Bible is an authority it is just to people that hold that view and that is understandable with in their traditions. But humans created those traditions and made those rules and they did not drop down from God. even paul seems to think that Moses got the Law from Angels a common idea at that time. For Paul Christ defeated the angels rule on earth and believers became part of Christ awaiting the iminate return of Jesus. I personally see the incarnation of God in all humans and to worship or love God was to love one another. This does have Jewish roots but it still is just opinion and wishful thinking on my part.

[micatala]

Make mine M&M cookies.

I personally see the incarnation of God in all humans and to worship or love God was to love one another. This does have Jewish roots but it still is just opinion and wishful thinking on my part.

It seems to me to be something Judaism passed along to Christianity, and is in my view more than consistent with that tradition, so I wouldn't say it is just your opinion, although sometimes realizing it in practice does seem like wishful thinking.

[Cathar1950]

Take away the sacrifice god-man myth and Christianity would never have become separate from Judaism. The war 66-70 pretty much did every one in. It seemed the Pharisees and Christians were the main survivers due to their giving up the anti-Roman Kingdom plans.

[unicorn]

Chad:

If you're going to quote me, don't delete words form my original sentence.

I didn't...hence the ellipses. You do know what ellipses are for, don't you?

...those articles are horribly biased, incorrect, and misleading...

anyways, some of those are obviously biased.

empasis added

Which one is it? All are biased? Some are biased? None are biased? Probably depends on what mood you're in? But, can you prove that any are biased?

Please go to...and read...

Why?

[Cathar1950]

Does any one think that the articles are really not biased? To be a Creationist is to be bias and presuppose a belief in a creator before any data. They are not writing because they are wondering. They are disputing based on a premise that can never be proved wrong to them.
Despite all the back breaking work and dirty digging for scapes of information real scientists would gladly change their views if given data and they often do. It is the nature of science.

[unicorn]

Cathar:

Actually, creationists believe in creation because of data. Evolutionists are really biased...they believe without data or proof.

They are disputing based on a premise that can never be proved wrong to them.

You're right, creationism hasn't ever been proved wrong. Never will be.

...real scientists would gladly change their views if given data and they often do...

You are right about that. Anthony Flew is our most recent example of that!