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]

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

Please re-read the Debate Forum Intro and Rules. 1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed. In debating circles, saying that someone does not understand logic, reason or evidence could be taken as a personal attack, especially if the allegation is unsupported by evidence. 5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence. You have made a serious accusation. Provide evidence or withdraw the allegation. Please take this as a formal warning from a moderator.

[The Happy Humanist]

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

Whoa! Better hope AlAyeti bypasses this one, he may have a coronary!

[micatala]

Well, I guess I haven't been paying enough attention to my own thread!

Let's see if I can partially catch up.

I did look at a couple of the links unicorn provided. Hopefully, I will have a chance to look at them more soon.

On Piltdown man, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I will point out that pretty much everyone knows this is a hoax. I will also point out that it was scientists who uncovered the hoax, which is how science works. It may take a while, but things that are wrong usually don't last long.

Concerning the second site, the very first sentence is problematic.

Both evolution and creation are models of an event that no human was around to see, and that cannot be repeated. Therefore, neither side is theorizing on a process that can be studied empirically.

This is, to me, a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of science. To say that anything that cannot directly be observed or repeated is not science is to throw out a lot of commonly accepted science.

We have never seen, nor will we ever see the interior of the sun, or probably even the earth. We also will likely never be able to 'repeat' the history of these objects. This does not mean that we cannot study them empirically. We can infer, from the evidence that we can see in the present, what is probably going on in the interior of these bodies, and how they got to be how they are now. In the same way, we can look at the evidence we have now (fossils, DNA, biodiversity, etc.) and create very reasonable scientific models of how life got to be the way we see it now, even if we can't go back in time.

At any rate, I don't mean this thread to turn into a 'general review of the evidence for evolution', but to focus more on the information given in the opening post.

Some of what has been written has more to do with whether we would like or not like to consider the Bonobo's our close relatives, either based on their behavior or just the fact that they are not human. I would ask that we try to by somewhat objective, and not consider only our subjective feelings about the matter.

[Jose]

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

Sorry, unicorn, but I find I agree with McCulloch, and support his formal warning. Logic, reason, and evidence are important in helping others see your side of the story. If you don't use it, you'll look silly.

One-liners are inappropriate because they are little more than a verbal "poke with a stick." OK, it's possible to say something tacky--so what? If you really think someone is wrong, why not take a more compassionate view (a more Christian view, one might say) and try to help them understand why your view is better? If you are really right, it shouldn't be very hard.

If you really want to debate things here, then contribute to the debate in a meaningful way. There are plenty of examples you could follow here. Read through some threads and see. You might also see that the debaters who throw out short sentences as jabs at everyone else don't seem to win many converts to their side.

[jcrawford]

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?

Definitely not! It's bad enough that neo-Darwinists want to associate the first African people on earth with chimpanzees. Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos. How insulting! Ban public radio.

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

It certainly indicates that public radio has no moral roots.

[AmerSdlbrd]

Attn: jcrawford

Definitely not! It's bad enough that neo-Darwinists want to associate the first African people on earth with chimpanzees. Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos.

Your gross mischaracterization of evolution is appalling, but you won't hear me saying ban creationism. If someone feels inclined to negatively affect their children's science education in their home or private school that is fine with me. But when their "science" education isn't accepted at any state University in California, you only have yourself to blame.

Genetics undeniably show that all humans regardless of creed are so genetically similar that they could only be classified as one biological race. Furthermore, racism existed thousands of years before Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, and slavery and likely racism have declined since Darwin's day. If evolution did promote racism, wouldn't we be seeing the exact opposite happening?

Here is an interesting quote from Henry Morris's 1976 (post civil rights movement) 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.

Or we can look at some statements from the most recent nation to abolish the Christian theocracy.

During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,

that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles'.

The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory.

Who is really racist, and what is up with you specifically refering to African people? We all have the same hairs per square inch as a chimpanzee. Lest we forget that it was our good friends in the bible belt whom fought hardest to prevent the abolition of slavery in America.

The aforementioned quotes and their sources can be found at: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

Ban public radio.

Yep, Ban public radio. We have a word for that, it is called censorship and it is a violation of our constitutional rights as Americans, don't make me call the ACLU .

[QED]

For all you google lovers:

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

3. NEANDERTHAL MAN.
They were not Man's ancestor as Homo sapiens has been found in earlier strata. He was a degenerate variety of Homo Sapiens having a larger brain and suffering from rickets, osteoarthritis and syphilis. He vanished from Europe, being replaced by modern Homo sapiens from the Middle East.

From "Creation Facts and True Biblical Counselling" a typical creationist website devoted to the TRUTH. I trust that jcrawford would not approve of such 'truth'.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
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?

Definitely not! It's bad enough that neo-Darwinists want to associate the first African people on earth with chimpanzees. Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos. How insulting! Ban public radio.

And what evidence do you have that de Waal is wacko? I find it ironic that you would dismiss de Waal so cavalierly, without a shred of evidence, and hold up a truly deficient scholar like Lubenow as someone to be listened to.

For those who are interested, Wikipedia provides this short bio of Dr. de Waal. He has at least 7 books to his name, and is a recognized international expert on primates.

Can I take your last comment to imply that you only believe in Freedom of Speech for those you agree with?

The Bonobos display behavior that most of us would characterize as empathetic, if not moral. Now, morality is commonly considered to be something that only applies in the human sphere, and many people would hold that morality ultimately derives from God. We are moral in nature either because we have a spiritual nature that can relate to God, or because we are created in God's image.

Now, if the literal Genesis creation model were true, and all existing species were created by fiat at once in the last 10,000 years, then the Bonobo's in all their aspects would have been created special by God in the particular way they are now, including their 'moral' behavior. Is there any Biblical support for animals having moral qualities? Why would God create creatures who are not only very very much like us genetically, but also display some of our moral nature, if we are the only beings created in God's image?

If these questions cannot be satisfactorily answered, then it seems much more logical to suggest that not only are our genetic similarities with Bonobo's the result of evolution, but that the behavioral similarities are as well.

[jcrawford]

Definitely not! It's bad enough that neo-Darwinists want to associate the first African people on earth with chimpanzees. Now, some neo-Darwinist whacko on public radio wants African people to think they might have originated from bonobos.

Your gross mischaracterization of evolution is appalling, but you won't hear me saying ban creationism.

No need to since it's already banned on NPR and in public schools.

Genetics undeniably show that all humans regardless of creed are so genetically similar that they could only be classified as one biological race.

Thank you. Creationists consider all human beings (dead or alive) to be full and equal biological members of the human race, exhibiting only racial variation today and also in the fossil record. We think that neo-Darwinist classifications of various human fossils into different and separate 'species' is a scientific form of racism.

Furthermore, racism existed thousands of years before Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, and slavery and likely racism have declined since Darwin's day. If evolution did promote racism, wouldn't we be seeing the exact opposite happening?

We did see evidence of much evolutionist racism during the 19th and 20th Centuries of European colonial and scientific expansionism around the world. Neo-Darwinist racism is inescapably intrinsic to, and inherent in, all theories of human evolution in and out of Africa. The whole idea of inferior and superior races arose with the advent of neo-Darwinism beginning in Erasmus Darwin's time and the formation of the Lunar Society. Where do you think we get the word, 'loonie,' and 'race' from?

Ban public radio.

Yep, Ban public radio. We have a word for that, it is called censorship and it is a violation of our constitutional rights as Americans, don't make me call the ACLU .

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?

[jcrawford]

For all you google lovers:

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

3. NEANDERTHAL MAN.
They were not Man's ancestor as Homo sapiens has been found in earlier strata. He was a degenerate variety of Homo Sapiens having a larger brain and suffering from rickets, osteoarthritis and syphilis. He vanished from Europe, being replaced by modern Homo sapiens from the Middle East.

From "Creation Facts and True Biblical Counselling" a typical creationist website devoted to the TRUTH. I trust that jcrawford would not approve of such 'truth'.

One can google for all sorts of "truth" about Neanderthal people. Here's a site that even has them classified as a 'sub-species' of Homo sapiens by neo-Darwinst race theorists. Of course, everyone now knows that Neanderthal people were not entirely human, because they've been re-classified as a completely different and separate 'species' than we 'modern' humans are.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/N/Nndrtlmn.asp