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?

[Chad]

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?

Yes, I do. You didn't use them properly at all, if that was what you were attempting to do.

My original sentence was...

Those articles are horribly biased, incorrect and misleading.

You quoted me as...

Those articles are horribly biased and misleading...

If you want to omit a word correctly you would have quoted me like this...

Those articles are horribly biased, ... and misleading.

If you want to make it even clearer you would enclose the ellipsis within brackets such as [...]. Also, it should be noted that a space before the ellipsis is required to be accurate and avoid confusion.

...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?

When I originally said they were biased, I was referring to the ones that I had clicked on and saw the highly religious overtone of the sites themselves. Sorry for any confusion.

Please go to...and read...

Why?

So you can better understand my reason for claiming a bias. I thought you were the one who was all about learning for one's self and doing the research on your own. I even laid out the main parts from the site with a direct link and you won’t follow your own teachings? Of course, I don't expect you to come to the conclusion of any bias. Not because it isn't there, but because you don't seem to understand science at all. Especially when you say this...

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

This leads me to wonder how much you actually now about the Theory of Evolution, with respect to science. However, maybe you would like to make a topic about the best data for creation as compared to the best data for Evolution.

[unicorn]

Chad:

Oops, you were correct. I did delete a word from your sentence. Simple mistake. However, a mistake that did not change the message of your statement (if that was what you were implying). So, there is no cause for your irritation. There, there.

So you can better understand my reason for claiming a bias. I thought you were the one who was all about learning for one's self and doing the research on your own.

There is a differene between me and you. I state a fact and suggest people research the issue; then come back if they are still stuck, then I provide proof. You post an article, make no statements about it (not even implications), and suggest people read it, then still provide no facts. Big difference.

I don't expect you to come to the conclusion of any bias. Not because it isn't there, but because you don't seem to understand science at all.

It would seem that way. As you continue to learn more, you'll realize otherwise.

Hey, maybe I will start such a topic! Good idea, my friend! But, give me time. I am moving this week. I am also going to get baptized. Busy, busy, busy!

P.S. I looked over your articles, albeit briefly. What about them do you think is biased, and how do you think they relate to my articles (which were mostly non-christian and with facts that can be verified by non-christian sources)?

note: Remember, just because a site is Christian, does not make it biased. If a Christian site can be backed by non-christian sources, it is merely a matter of fact, not bias...but, I've mentioned that before.

[Chad]

So you can better understand my reason for claiming a bias. I thought you were the one who was all about learning for one's self and doing the research on your own.

There is a differene between me and you. I state a fact and suggest people research the issue; then come back if they are still stuck, then I provide proof. You post an article, make no statements about it (not even implications), and suggest people read it, then still provide no facts. Big difference.

I would have thought the sentence above, stating, "Some of those articles are obviously biased" followed by "Please read" was implication enough.

P.S. I looked over your articles, albeit briefly. What about them do you think is biased, and how do you think they relate to my articles (which were mostly non-christian and with facts that can be verified by non-christian sources)?

note: Remember, just because a site is Christian, does not make it biased. If a Christian site can be backed by non-christian sources, it is merely a matter of fact, not bias...but, I've mentioned that before.

The fact that the site is pushing God and The Bible is a very valid reason to call it biased. They start with a never changing conclusion and mold their data to agree with it and often ignore any evidence that would suggest otherwise. This is not how science works.

Take the following excerpt from one of those articles you posted...

Time and chance are the creators of evolutionists. The idea is that given enough time, anything possible will happen. But will it really?

That is a very ignorant statement to make. Evolution doesn't work just from time and chance. They are missing a key part of the process. If evolution worked only from chance, it's rather obvious that we shouldn't expect much to happen. However, Evolution is a rather non-random process that works via natural selection. Those with favorable adoptions will survive and continue to produce, thus passing on there genes. Over a long period (to us) a lot can happen, depending on the evolutionary pressures of course. Evolution is not a set course. There is no preset end point to evolution. IF evolution adapts well to a way of life for a certain environment, and little change occurs, then some species may undergo extremely little evolutionary change (evolutionary stasis).

[Cathar1950]

Unicorn wrote:

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

That is simply not true. You have it backwards.
The creationist mostly depend on the bible for there data. Any data used conforms to their bias.

I wrote:

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.

You missed my point they(creationist) refuse to see it any other way. It has been shown to have errors and faulty reasoning.

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

That is hardly proof it might be he is checking out or senile. Did he disavow evolution or just acknowledge God?

[QED]

Sorry to interrupt but I'm afraid the gentle hand of moderation is once more called for. As a brief reminder, with reference to his OP, micatala asked:

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?

Perhaps unicorn could help by taking her arguments in defence of creationism to one of the many topics already debating along these lines. Thanks.

[unicorn]

Chad: It is clear that you do not understand the full implications of the The Theory of Evolution. I will it at that.

Cathar: Frustration won't make you right. Creationism is less faulty than evolution. Continuing to ignore the data will not make it go away.

[Cathar1950]

Unicorn frustration comes from your lack of reason and data. Repeating the status quo of Bible believing Christians does not make it true. Creationism does not have data that I have seen that isn't pure mythology or reinventions to make it fit an unworkable model.
You are correct in that you don't have flaws in your logic because you have not presented any.