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?

[unicorn]

1 and 2--no

The concept of human evolution has no basis in reality. I don't think this information provides us with any hint that moral behavior is the result of evolution. A bonobo is a bonobo as is because that is the way God created him. A chimp is a chimp as is because that is the way God created him. We are as is because this is the way God created us.

Something this article does tell us: 1) Bonobos are cool 2) Animals are a wonderful gift from God and deserve to be cherished, respected, and treated with kindness.

[Cathar1950]

micatala's questions:

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?

#1) I would like to think so. But the general respond from people who have an aversion to the idea of evolution or refuse to see it as at least as the way the good Lord works. Evolution is change. It involves adaptation at all levels of reality. Change happens by definition yet those that have an aversion to evolution also believe in an infallible bible and an unchanging God. I find both of these ideas meaningless at best. They have the kind of minds that take a statement attributed to God among contridictory statements facts and opinions and take statements attributed to God such as "I will never change my love for you" to "the unmoved mover". This kind of being would be powerless, meaningless and useless. I am talking about the unmoved mover not the love part. I like to think of a loving God(one of my images or metaphors)Would not only endorse evolution and be part of it's beauty as well as suffer with it's suffering. A lot of creatures have this quality. This brings me to
#2) Of course! What does not have evolutionary roots? Maybe those that have an aversion to evolution have not evolved that ability to see the workings of nature. Or maybe they just don't have the desire. Maybe they are just more afraid then the bonobo of death and life.
unicorn wrote:

The concept of human evolution has no basis in reality. I don't think this information provides us with any hint that moral behavior is the result of evolution. A bonobo is a bonobo as is because that is the way God created him. A chimp is a chimp as is because that is the way God created him. We are as is because this is the way God created us.

That first statement is opinion and false. Reality is what it is all about.
I see evolution giving us the foundation of morality as empathy and sympathy. You know God is love? Any kind of morality has to be at least grounded in nature and life to even be meaningful. Laws and morality evolve as we do. Not always for the best but the do evolve.
saying things are the way they are because God made them that way is something grandma would say to a 3 year old. I love Grandma and Grandma loves me. But I am not always going to be 3.
But maybe that is the way God made you and every one is the way God made them. Kind of make debating boring.
unicorn wrote:

Something this article does tell us: 1) Bonobos are cool 2) Animals are a wonderful gift from God and deserve to be cherished, respected, and treated with kindness.

At least we agree on something. I think unicorns are cool but I don't believe in them.

[unicorn]

How can you be so certain we agree? I never said unicorns were cool...didn't really say whether or not I believe in them either.

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.

I see evolution giving us the foundation of morality as empathy and sympathy.

Wanting something to be true does not make it true.

Laws and morality evolve as we do.

Morality does not evolve. Who was talking about laws?

Saying things are the way they are because God made them that way is something gradma would say to a 3 year old.

Are you attacking me? Usually that's a sign of fear. Fear would probably result from the fact that you have no evidence to back up your desires for macroevolution to be true.

But maybe that is the way God made you...Kind of make debating boring.

Really? I think it's fun!

[Jose]

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?

Alas, I think not. There are already a great many in the general public, including many who are deeply religious, who already accept evolution. There remain a committed cadre of those who object to it on the grounds that they can't square it with Genesis. Regrettably, this view tends to be accompanied by certain views about infanticide and sexual promiscuity; chimps are known to engage in the former, and bonobos the latter--they are especially famed for settling political disputes by female-female ... uhhh... "get-togethers," we might say.

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

What you've posted, along with some things I have posted here and there as well (e.g. the "origin of morality" thread), argue very strongly that our moral nature is evolutionary. Unfortunately, this also means that the immoral nature of some people represents genetic variation in these sorts of behavioral instincts. Laws and traditions help keep most of us in check, but there nonetheless remain some who ignore the laws and conventions, or may go so far as to claim that such "quaint" laws "don't apply to them," because they have a higher mandate.

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.

Well, you know, one of the fun things about this forum is the Rule that, if one is going to make assertions, they must be supported with evidence. Can you demonstrate to us that what you say here is actually true? My humble opinion--and I mean this in the kindest, most constructive, loving way--is that it's hogwash.

On the other hand, I fully agree with you on this point:

Something this article does tell us: 1) Bonobos are cool 2) Animals are a wonderful gift from God and deserve to be cherished, respected, and treated with kindness.

[Cathar1950]

unicorn wrote:

me Quote:

Saying things are the way they are because God made them that way is something gradma would say to a 3 year old.

Are you attacking me? Usually that's a sign of fear. Fear would probably result from the fact that you have no evidence to back up your desires for macroevolution to be true.

Hell no I wasn't attacking you. I was reminiscing. I still stick with the evolution and I am willing to include evil. The evidence is all over I am not afraid of anything except monsters. I think you might be projecting.

[Cathar1950]

By the way it is irrelevent if you believe in unicorns or not, they are still cool. So are the other beasts.

[unicorn]

Cathar1950:

Yeah...okay.

[Cathar1950]

My personal feeling is that Evolution would be a better argument for God.
This would have to exclude an infallible view of the bible.
Culture and morality do evolve. If you look at the bible with any kind of objectivity it seems to show an evolution in the form of adaptation and change.

[QED]

The concept of human evolution has no basis in reality.

This must be a tricky position to defend if it is more than just empty rhetoric.

Analysis of the human genome has revealed a wealth of information about our evolution, about patterns of historical migration and population movement, and about the relationships between humans and other primate species. Recent technological developments have allowed the extraction of Neanderthal DNA from fossil bones for the first time, shedding more light on how Homo sapiens came into being. In this interview Chris Stringer, Head of Human Origins at The Natural History Museum, explains the range of genetic evidence for human evolution.

http://www.fathom.com/feature/190159/

I can't help finding the work published by the scientific professionals in these fields more rooted in reality than the dogmatic assertions drawn directly form the bible. Can anyone really blame me? An understanding of DNA and the human genome project are fantastic accomplishments that have only just been achieved yet already they are delivering working therapies for genetic diseases and are enabling law enforcement agencies to identify individuals from the minutest of scraps of bodily material. In other words the science isn't tosh. So when it speaks of human evolution, I'm inclined to listen.

But if I look around me I can back up my "faith" with a few simple observations: people have grown in size during the last millennia or two. I can see this from doorways, tombs and other ancient relics. I often chuckle at my littlest toes... they seem to be on "their way out". If I could see my appendix I'd chuckle at that as it is no longer an asset (more like a liability).

Macroevolution is an arbitrary line drawn by those who are forced to accept the reality of evolution but cannot bear to have it go as far as influencing the origin of humans. As Cathar says evolution is a wonderful tool that any God would be proud to have invented. Why deny the glory by imposing such an arbitrary limit on its effectiveness?

The belief that species are fixed by design is just the tip of a logical iceberg that leads on to denial of many things that we simply know aren't so... for example, a powerful influence over speciation is continental drift which isolates members of a species. Because of this certain fundamentalists challenge the notion of plate tectonics. The fact that we can actually measure the drift of continents using GPS seems to go totally over their heads.

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